cclaw-cli 0.4.0 → 0.5.0

package/dist/content/autoplan.js

@@ -1,344 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Autoplan orchestrator content for cclaw.
- * Generates markdown instructions that AI agents follow; cclaw does not execute the pipeline.
- */
-export function autoplanSkillMarkdown() {
-    return `---
-name: autoplan
-description: "One command, rough idea in, fully reviewed plan out. Runs brainstorm through plan stages in sequence with auto-decisions."
----
-
-# Cclaw Autoplan — Auto-Orchestration
-
-## Overview
-
-Autoplan is a **one-shot planning pipeline** that accepts a rough idea (plus whatever context already exists in the repo) and produces a **fully reviewed plan** as markdown artifacts under \`.cclaw/artifacts/\`.
-
-It runs the **first five cclaw flow stages in strict order**:
-
-\`brainstorm → scope → design → spec → plan\`
-
-Mechanical questions are **auto-answered** using the Six Decision Principles and logged to a running **Decision Audit Trail**. **Taste** decisions are also auto-answered but must be **surfaced with rationale** at the single **Final Approval Gate**. **User challenges** (cases where the agent believes the user’s stated direction should change) are **never** auto-decided.
-
-Autoplan ends with **one structured HARD STOP** for human approval before any downstream work (test/build/review/ship) should proceed.
-
-This skill describes **what the agent must do when invoked as \`/cc-autoplan\`**. Cclaw installs the markdown; **the agent performs the protocol**.
-
-## HARD-GATE
-
-- **Do NOT write implementation code** (no feature code, refactors, migrations, or "quick fixes" in application sources). Autoplan output is **planning artifacts only**.
-- **Do NOT skip any phase** (Phases 0–6). If something seems redundant, still execute it and record "no material change" with evidence.
-- **Do NOT auto-answer user challenges.** Present them explicitly and wait.
-- **Do NOT "shortcut"** to individual stage commands mid-pipeline unless the user explicitly aborts autoplan and chooses a different path.
-
-## Phase Sequence
-
-### Phase 0 — Intake (always runs)
-
-1. **Create restore point (mandatory, first filesystem write of autoplan):**
-   - Path: \`.cclaw/state/autoplan-restore-{ISO-8601-timestamp}.md\`
-   - Ensure parent directories exist.
-   - File must include:
-     - **Timestamp** (same as filename)
-     - **Current git branch** (or explicit note if not a git repo)
-     - **Original idea/plan text** (verbatim capture of what the user provided for this autoplan run)
-     - **Re-run instructions** (how to resume; see **Restore Points**)
-2. **Load context:**
-   - Read existing \`.cclaw/artifacts/\` (if present) to avoid contradicting prior locked decisions without calling it out.
-   - Read **recent git log** (bounded, e.g., last ~30 commits) and **current branch**.
-   - Read \`AGENTS.md\` and/or \`CLAUDE.md\` if present (repo agent guidance).
-3. **Scope detection flags (heuristic, non-blocking):**
-   - **UI scope active** if the request matches **2+** UI/UX terms (examples: "layout", "responsive", "animation", "accessibility", "Figma", "design system", "component", "CSS", "dark mode", "modal", "form validation UX", "empty state", "loading skeleton", "pixel", "spacing", "typography", "contrast", "WCAG", "screen reader", "keyboard navigation").
-   - **DX scope active** if the request matches **2+** dev-tooling terms (examples: "CLI", "flag", "subcommand", "SDK", "API client", "OpenAPI", "schema", "codegen", "plugin", "hook", "watcher", "dev server", "logging format", "telemetry", "error codes", "CI", "lint rule", "formatter", "LSP", "extension", "REPL").
-   - If both activate, **record both** and prefer **explicit user priority** if stated; otherwise treat as **multi-surface** and keep UX + DX constraints visible in later phases.
-4. **Load stage skills (read fully, treat as authoritative for stage depth):**
-   - \`.cclaw/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md\`
-   - \`.cclaw/skills/scope-shaping/SKILL.md\`
-   - \`.cclaw/skills/engineering-design-lock/SKILL.md\`
-   - \`.cclaw/skills/specification-authoring/SKILL.md\`
-   - \`.cclaw/skills/planning-and-task-breakdown/SKILL.md\`
-
-### Phase 1 — Brainstorm (always runs)
-
-- Follow \`.cclaw/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md\` at **full depth** (all sections, all required evaluations).
-- **Auto-answer mechanical questions** using the Six Decision Principles + phase tie-breakers.
-- **Premise / USER CHALLENGE rule:** If the agent believes a core user premise is wrong, risky, or incompatible with repo reality, classify it as **User Challenge** and **stop auto-progression** on that item until the user confirms or revises.
-- **Artifact:** write/update \`.cclaw/artifacts/01-brainstorm.md\` (single source of truth for brainstorm outputs).
-
-### Phase 2 — Scope (always runs)
-
-- Follow \`.cclaw/skills/scope-shaping/SKILL.md\` at **full depth**.
-- **Run scope-mode heuristics** (see dedicated section below), then select exactly one:
-  - **SCOPE_EXPANSION** (dream big)
-  - **SELECTIVE_EXPANSION** (hold core scope, cherry-pick high-value expansions)
-  - **HOLD** (maximum rigor on requested scope)
-  - **SCOPE_REDUCTION** (strip to essentials)
-- **Default recommendation (before scoring):**
-  - Greenfield/product-bet starts at **SELECTIVE_EXPANSION**.
-  - Enhancement/bugfix starts at **HOLD**.
-  - If predicted blast radius is **>15 files** or introduces new infra under tight constraints, bias toward **SCOPE_REDUCTION**.
-- **Auto-answer** scope boundary questions when they are **mechanical** or **taste** (never user challenges).
-- **Surface requirement:** write a **Scope Mode Heuristics** table and final selected mode rationale in \`02-scope.md\`.
-- **Artifact:** \`.cclaw/artifacts/02-scope.md\`
-
-### Phase 3 — Design (always runs)
-
-- Follow \`.cclaw/skills/engineering-design-lock/SKILL.md\` at **full depth**.
-- **All review sections** must be evaluated; **none skipped**. If a section has no findings, write **"No issues found"** with a brief evidence note (what you checked).
-- **Artifact:** \`.cclaw/artifacts/03-design.md\`
-
-### Phase 4 — Spec (always runs)
-
-- Follow \`.cclaw/skills/specification-authoring/SKILL.md\` at **full depth**.
-- **Artifact:** \`.cclaw/artifacts/04-spec.md\`
-
-### Phase 5 — Plan (always runs)
-
-- Follow \`.cclaw/skills/planning-and-task-breakdown/SKILL.md\` at **full depth**.
-- Maintain the **Decision Audit Trail** as a running markdown table inside \`05-plan.md\` (append rows after each auto-decision).
-- **Artifact:** \`.cclaw/artifacts/05-plan.md\`
-
-### Phase 6 — Final Approval Gate (HARD STOP)
-
-Present a **structured summary** to the user and **do not proceed** to implementation stages until the user selects an option.
-
-**Must include:**
-
-- **Plan summary** (goal, scope cut-line, key design decisions, spec highlights, plan outline).
-- **Total auto-decisions count** (mechanical + taste).
-- **Taste decisions** with **one-line impact of the rejected alternative** each.
-- **User challenges** (if any) — explicitly list: what user said, agent recommendation, why, cost if agent is wrong.
-- **Decision audit trail pointer** (where the full table lives — typically \`.cclaw/artifacts/05-plan.md\`).
-- **Cross-phase themes** (recurring constraints, risks, or invariants spanning brainstorm→plan).
-
-**Options:**
-
-- **(A) Approve as-is** — treat artifacts as locked enough to start downstream cclaw stages.
-- **(B) Approve with overrides** — user states explicit overrides; update artifacts to reflect overrides **without** inventing new scope; re-present diff summary.
-- **(C) Interrogate a specific decision** — answer questions; only mutate artifacts if corrections are agreed.
-- **(D) Revise plan** — re-run **affected phases only**, preserving intact artifacts where unchanged; **max 3 revision cycles** total (count across the whole autoplan session).
-- **(E) Reject / start over** — stop; optionally create a fresh restore point on the next run.
-
-## Six Decision Principles (for auto-answering)
-
-1. **Completeness (P1):** Ship the whole thing. Prefer covering edge cases and failure modes over leaving silent gaps.
-2. **Boil Lakes (P2):** Fix everything in the blast radius (touched files + direct importers). Auto-approve lake-boiling when **< 5 files** and **no new infra** (no new services, queues, clusters, deployables).
-3. **Pragmatic (P3):** If two options solve the same problem, pick the cleaner/faster-to-validate one. **5 seconds, not 5 minutes** — but do not disguise uncertainty as speed.
-4. **DRY (P4):** Reject duplicating existing functionality; prefer extension points and shared modules already present in-repo.
-5. **Explicit over Clever (P5):** Prefer obvious, short solutions with clear boundaries over clever abstractions.
-6. **Bias toward Action (P6):** Prefer merging decisions and moving forward; **flag** residual risks rather than **blocking** unless a true stop condition exists (security, correctness, ethics, user challenge).
-
-### Phase tie-breakers
-
-- **Brainstorm + Scope:** **P1 + P2 dominate** (completeness + blast-radius integrity).
-- **Design + Spec:** **P5 + P1 dominate** (explicitness + completeness of specification).
-- **Plan:** **P3 + P5 dominate** (pragmatic sequencing + explicit tasks).
-
-## Decision Taxonomy
-
-### Mechanical
-
-- **Definition:** Exactly one clearly correct answer given repo conventions and constraints.
-- **Behavior:** Auto-decide **silently** (no chat clutter), but **still log** to the audit trail.
-- **Examples:** use the repo's existing test framework; follow established lint/format patterns; reuse established error handling utilities.
-
-### Taste
-
-- **Definition:** Reasonable engineers could disagree; tradeoffs are real but not safety-critical.
-- **Behavior:** Auto-decide with a **stated recommendation** + rationale; **must surface** at Final Approval Gate with **one-line impact of rejected alternative**.
-- **Examples:** borderline scope inclusion; close architectural approaches; naming that affects ergonomics but not correctness.
-
-### User Challenge
-
-- **Definition:** The agent believes the user's direction should change (premise risk, wrong problem framing, incompatible constraints, ethical/safety concern).
-- **Behavior:** **NEVER auto-decided.** Present:
-  - what the user said (quoted, concise)
-  - what the agent recommends instead
-  - why (repo evidence + reasoning)
-  - cost if the agent is wrong
-- **Gate:** Wait for explicit user resolution before treating that thread as decided.
-
-## Scope Mode Heuristics (Phase 2)
-
-Score each signal as **+1** (expansion bias), **0** (neutral), or **-1** (contraction bias), then total.
-Record the scoring table in \`.cclaw/artifacts/02-scope.md\`.
-
-| Signal | +1 Expansion Bias | 0 Neutral | -1 Contraction Bias |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Product novelty | Net-new workflow/subsystem | Moderate feature extension | Bugfix or narrow patch |
-| User value upside | Material step-function in UX/DX/business value | Incremental improvement | Marginal gain only |
-| Blast radius | Limited, coherent module set | Mixed | Wide cross-cutting changes |
-| Delivery risk | Low dependency and integration risk | Moderate | High regression or unknown coupling |
-| Time/constraint pressure | Flexible timeline | Manageable | Tight deadline or strict compliance window |
-| Operability burden | Existing observability/release path supports growth | Partial readiness | Missing guardrails; expansion would outpace controls |
-
-**Mode recommendation by score:**
-- **+3 or higher:** recommend **SCOPE_EXPANSION**
-- **+1 to +2:** recommend **SELECTIVE_EXPANSION**
-- **0 to -2:** recommend **HOLD**
-- **-3 or lower:** recommend **SCOPE_REDUCTION**
-
-**Override heuristics (higher priority):**
-- If user asks for immediate bugfix/hotfix with reliability urgency, floor mode at **HOLD**.
-- If expansion requires new infra/service boundaries without prior operational readiness, prefer **SCOPE_REDUCTION** or **HOLD**.
-- If user explicitly requests an ambitious bet and constraints are flexible, allow **SCOPE_EXPANSION** even when score is borderline (must log risk assumptions).
-
-**Surfacing rule:**
-- Final Approval Gate must include: selected mode, score summary, and top 2 signals that drove the choice.
-
-## Decision Audit Trail (running table)
-
-After **each** auto-decision (mechanical or taste), append a row to the running table stored in \`.cclaw/artifacts/05-plan.md\` (create the table if missing):
-
-| # | Phase | Decision | Classification | Principle | Rationale | Rejected Alternative |
-|---:|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| 1 | brainstorm | … | Mechanical | P4 | … | … |
-
-**Rules:**
-
-- **Monotonic numbering** across the entire autoplan run (do not reset per phase).
-- **No blank classifications.** If unsure between mechanical vs taste, default to **taste** (safer) and surface at the gate.
-- The table is part of the **evidence bundle** for the Final Approval Gate.
-
-## Restore Points
-
-- **When:** Phase 0, **before any substantive work** begins (before mutating artifacts beyond creating dirs).
-- **Path:** \`.cclaw/state/autoplan-restore-{ISO-timestamp}.md\`
-- **Contents must include:**
-  - timestamp
-  - branch
-  - original idea/plan text
-  - re-run instructions
-- **Resume procedure:** copy the captured **original idea/plan text** back into the working plan input the user provides, then run \`/cc-autoplan\` again (optionally after reverting artifact edits manually if needed).
-
-## Completion Status
-
-Report exactly one terminal status for the autoplan session:
-
-- **APPROVED** — user chose (A) or accepted post-(B) state without further revision cycles.
-- **APPROVED_WITH_OVERRIDES** — user chose (B) and artifacts reflect explicit overrides.
-- **REJECTED** — user chose (E) or explicitly abandoned the plan.
-- **BLOCKED** — cannot proceed due to unresolved **User Challenge(s)** or hard external dependency; list what unblocks.
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-- **Skipping a phase** because "it's obvious."
-- **Auto-deciding user challenges** "to save time."
-- **Failing to log** auto-decisions in the audit trail.
-- **Aborting mid-pipeline** and redirecting to individual stage commands without an explicit user abort decision.
-- **Exceeding 3 revision cycles** for option (D); if still unresolved, stop with **BLOCKED** and a crisp list of remaining forks.
-- **Silent artifact drift** (changing earlier artifacts without marking what changed and why).
-
-## Common Rationalizations (reject these)
-
-| Rationalization | Reality |
-|---|---|
-| "We can skip scope because brainstorm was thorough." | Thorough brainstorm does not replace scope shaping; different obligations, different failure modes. |
-| "Design lock is redundant if the spec is going to rewrite it anyway." | Spec authorizes details; design lock prevents architectural drift and hidden coupling before authorization. |
-| "I'll batch auto-decisions mentally and log them at the end." | End-only logging guarantees omissions; the audit trail is a **running** compliance artifact. |
-| "The user's premise is probably wrong, but I'll implement around it." | That is a **User Challenge**; autoplan must surface it, not sneak around it. |
-
-## Red Flags (stop and reassess)
-
-- **Missing restore file** after claiming Phase 0 complete.
-- **05-plan.md** has fewer audit rows than claimed auto-decisions.
-- **Any implementation patch** appears during autoplan (source edits outside \`.cclaw/\` planning artifacts).
-- **Contradictions across artifacts** without an explicit "revision delta" section explaining the change.
-- **Skipped review sections** in design (missing "No issues found" where applicable).
-- **Revision cycle count** is unclear or exceeds three.
-
-## Agent Execution Notes (non-normative but helpful)
-
-- Prefer **small, explicit commits** of artifacts only if the repo workflow expects it; otherwise keep changes grouped logically — but never hide planning edits.
-- Treat **UI scope** / **DX scope** flags as persistent headers in artifacts **02–05** so downstream agents inherit the context quickly.
-`;
-}
-export function autoplanCommandContract() {
-    return `# /cc-autoplan
-
-## Purpose
-
-Run **brainstorm → scope → design → spec → plan** as a single orchestrated pass: load repo context, create a restore point, execute each stage skill at full depth, auto-answer mechanical questions, auto-resolve taste questions with explicit rationale, never auto-resolve user challenges, and finish with **one Final Approval Gate** before any implementation work.
-
-## HARD-GATE
-
-- **No implementation code** during autoplan (planning artifacts only).
-- **No skipped phases** (Phases 0–6).
-- **No auto-answers for user challenges** (explicit user resolution required).
-
-## Phase Sequence (numbered, one-line each)
-
-1. **Phase 0 — Intake:** restore point + context scan + UI/DX scope flags + read all five stage skills.
-2. **Phase 1 — Brainstorm:** full \`brainstorming\` skill depth → \`.cclaw/artifacts/01-brainstorm.md\`.
-3. **Phase 2 — Scope:** full \`scope-shaping\` skill depth + scope-mode heuristic scoring (EXPANSION / SELECTIVE / HOLD / REDUCTION) → \`02-scope.md\`.
-4. **Phase 3 — Design:** full \`engineering-design-lock\` skill depth; all review sections evaluated → \`03-design.md\`.
-5. **Phase 4 — Spec:** full \`specification-authoring\` skill depth → \`04-spec.md\`.
-6. **Phase 5 — Plan:** full \`planning-and-task-breakdown\` skill depth; maintain audit trail table → \`05-plan.md\`.
-7. **Phase 6 — Final Approval Gate:** HARD STOP summary + options **A–E** (max **3** revision cycles for **D**).
-
-## Decision Principles (numbered list)
-
-1. **Completeness (P1):** ship the whole thing; favor edge-case and failure-mode coverage.
-2. **Boil Lakes (P2):** clean the full blast radius; auto-approve when **< 5 files** and **no new infra**.
-3. **Pragmatic (P3):** pick the cleaner equal fix quickly (**5 seconds not 5 minutes**).
-4. **DRY (P4):** do not duplicate existing functionality; extend what exists.
-5. **Explicit over Clever (P5):** obvious, short solutions win.
-6. **Bias toward Action (P6):** merge over endless review; flag residual risks instead of stalling.
-
-**Phase tie-breakers:** brainstorm/scope → **P1+P2**; design/spec → **P5+P1**; plan → **P3+P5**.
-
-## Decision Taxonomy (Mechanical / Taste / User Challenge)
-
-- **Mechanical:** one clearly right answer → auto-decide silently + **audit log row**.
-- **Taste:** reasonable disagreement → auto-decide with recommendation + **audit log row** + **surface at gate** with **one-line rejected-alternative impact**.
-- **User Challenge:** agent recommends changing user direction → **never** auto-decide; present evidence + costs; await user.
-
-## Scope Mode Heuristics (Phase 2)
-
-- Score six scope signals (+1 / 0 / -1): novelty, value upside, blast radius, delivery risk, time pressure, operability burden.
-- Map total score to recommendation:
-  - **+3+** → **SCOPE_EXPANSION**
-  - **+1..+2** → **SELECTIVE_EXPANSION**
-  - **0..-2** → **HOLD**
-  - **-3-** → **SCOPE_REDUCTION**
-- Apply overrides: urgent bugfixes floor at **HOLD**; high-risk infra expansion biases **HOLD/REDUCTION**.
-- Persist scoring + selected mode in \`02-scope.md\`, then surface it again in the Final Approval Gate summary.
-
-## Final Approval Gate (options A-E)
-
-- **(A) Approve as-is**
-- **(B) Approve with overrides** (explicit user deltas reflected in artifacts)
-- **(C) Interrogate a specific decision** (Q/A; only change artifacts if corrections are agreed)
-- **(D) Revise plan** (re-run affected phases only; **≤ 3** cycles)
-- **(E) Reject / start over**
-
-## Restore Points
-
-Created in **Phase 0** at \`.cclaw/state/autoplan-restore-{ISO-timestamp}.md\` containing timestamp, branch, original idea text, and resume instructions (**copy original idea/plan text → rerun \`/cc-autoplan\`**).
-
-## Completion Status
-
-**APPROVED**, **APPROVED_WITH_OVERRIDES**, **REJECTED**, **BLOCKED**.
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-Skipping phases; auto-deciding user challenges; missing audit trail rows; mid-run redirects to other cclaw commands without explicit user abort; >3 revision cycles; silent cross-artifact contradictions.
-
-## Primary Skill (.cclaw/skills/autoplan/SKILL.md)
-
-The executable protocol and tables live in the installed autoplan skill markdown at \`.cclaw/skills/autoplan/SKILL.md\` (generated from cclaw's orchestrator content module).
-`;
-}
-export function autoplanAgentsMdBlock() {
-    return `### Autoplan Orchestrator
-
-Use \`/cc-autoplan\` to run brainstorm→scope→design→spec→plan in one shot with auto-decisions.
-- Mechanical questions are auto-answered using 6 principles
-- Scope mode (EXPANSION / SELECTIVE / HOLD / REDUCTION) is selected via explicit heuristic scoring in Phase 2
-- Taste decisions are auto-answered but surfaced at a single final approval gate
-- User challenges are NEVER auto-answered
-- Restore point is created before any work begins
-
-Use this when you want a complete planning pass without interactive per-stage approval.
-`;
-}