cfsa-antigravity 2.19.0 → 2.19.2

package/template/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/find-polluter.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Bisection script to find which test creates unwanted files/state
+# Usage: ./find-polluter.sh <file_or_dir_to_check> <test_pattern>
+# Example: ./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
+
+set -e
+
+if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
+  echo "Usage: $0 <file_to_check> <test_pattern>"
+  echo "Example: $0 '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+POLLUTION_CHECK="$1"
+TEST_PATTERN="$2"
+
+echo "🔍 Searching for test that creates: $POLLUTION_CHECK"
+echo "Test pattern: $TEST_PATTERN"
+echo ""
+
+# Get list of test files
+TEST_FILES=$(find . -path "$TEST_PATTERN" | sort)
+TOTAL=$(echo "$TEST_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+
+echo "Found $TOTAL test files"
+echo ""
+
+COUNT=0
+for TEST_FILE in $TEST_FILES; do
+  COUNT=$((COUNT + 1))
+
+  # Skip if pollution already exists
+  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+    echo "⚠️  Pollution already exists before test $COUNT/$TOTAL"
+    echo "   Skipping: $TEST_FILE"
+    continue
+  fi
+
+  echo "[$COUNT/$TOTAL] Testing: $TEST_FILE"
+
+  # Run the test
+  npm test "$TEST_FILE" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
+
+  # Check if pollution appeared
+  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+    echo ""
+    echo "🎯 FOUND POLLUTER!"
+    echo "   Test: $TEST_FILE"
+    echo "   Created: $POLLUTION_CHECK"
+    echo ""
+    echo "Pollution details:"
+    ls -la "$POLLUTION_CHECK"
+    echo ""
+    echo "To investigate:"
+    echo "  npm test $TEST_FILE    # Run just this test"
+    echo "  cat $TEST_FILE         # Review test code"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+echo ""
+echo "✅ No polluter found - all tests clean!"
+exit 0

package/template/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/root-cause-tracing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+# Root Cause Tracing
+
+## Overview
+
+Bugs often manifest deep in the call stack (git init in wrong directory, file created in wrong location, database opened with wrong path). Your instinct is to fix where the error appears, but that's treating a symptom.
+
+**Core principle:** Trace backward through the call chain until you find the original trigger, then fix at the source.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Bug appears deep in stack?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Can trace backwards?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Fix at symptom point" [shape=box];
+    "Trace to original trigger" [shape=box];
+    "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth" [shape=box];
+
+    "Bug appears deep in stack?" -> "Can trace backwards?" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Trace to original trigger" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Fix at symptom point" [label="no - dead end"];
+    "Trace to original trigger" -> "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth";
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+- Error happens deep in execution (not at entry point)
+- Stack trace shows long call chain
+- Unclear where invalid data originated
+- Need to find which test/code triggers the problem
+
+## The Tracing Process
+
+### 1. Observe the Symptom
+```
+Error: git init failed in /Users/jesse/project/packages/core
+```
+
+### 2. Find Immediate Cause
+**What code directly causes this?**
+```typescript
+await execFileAsync('git', ['init'], { cwd: projectDir });
+```
+
+### 3. Ask: What Called This?
+```typescript
+WorktreeManager.createSessionWorktree(projectDir, sessionId)
+  → called by Session.initializeWorkspace()
+  → called by Session.create()
+  → called by test at Project.create()
+```
+
+### 4. Keep Tracing Up
+**What value was passed?**
+- `projectDir = ''` (empty string!)
+- Empty string as `cwd` resolves to `process.cwd()`
+- That's the source code directory!
+
+### 5. Find Original Trigger
+**Where did empty string come from?**
+```typescript
+const context = setupCoreTest(); // Returns { tempDir: '' }
+Project.create('name', context.tempDir); // Accessed before beforeEach!
+```
+
+## Adding Stack Traces
+
+When you can't trace manually, add instrumentation:
+
+```typescript
+// Before the problematic operation
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  const stack = new Error().stack;
+  console.error('DEBUG git init:', {
+    directory,
+    cwd: process.cwd(),
+    nodeEnv: process.env.NODE_ENV,
+    stack,
+  });
+
+  await execFileAsync('git', ['init'], { cwd: directory });
+}
+```
+
+**Critical:** Use `console.error()` in tests (not logger - may not show)
+
+**Run and capture:**
+```bash
+npm test 2>&1 | grep 'DEBUG git init'
+```
+
+**Analyze stack traces:**
+- Look for test file names
+- Find the line number triggering the call
+- Identify the pattern (same test? same parameter?)
+
+## Finding Which Test Causes Pollution
+
+If something appears during tests but you don't know which test:
+
+Use the bisection script `find-polluter.sh` in this directory:
+
+```bash
+./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
+```
+
+Runs tests one-by-one, stops at first polluter. See script for usage.
+
+## Real Example: Empty projectDir
+
+**Symptom:** `.git` created in `packages/core/` (source code)
+
+**Trace chain:**
+1. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()` ← empty cwd parameter
+2. WorktreeManager called with empty projectDir
+3. Session.create() passed empty string
+4. Test accessed `context.tempDir` before beforeEach
+5. setupCoreTest() returns `{ tempDir: '' }` initially
+
+**Root cause:** Top-level variable initialization accessing empty value
+
+**Fix:** Made tempDir a getter that throws if accessed before beforeEach
+
+**Also added defense-in-depth:**
+- Layer 1: Project.create() validates directory
+- Layer 2: WorkspaceManager validates not empty
+- Layer 3: NODE_ENV guard refuses git init outside tmpdir
+- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
+
+## Key Principle
+
+```dot
+digraph principle {
+    "Found immediate cause" [shape=ellipse];
+    "Can trace one level up?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Trace backwards" [shape=box];
+    "Is this the source?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Fix at source" [shape=box];
+    "Add validation at each layer" [shape=box];
+    "Bug impossible" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "NEVER fix just the symptom" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+    "Found immediate cause" -> "Can trace one level up?";
+    "Can trace one level up?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace one level up?" -> "NEVER fix just the symptom" [label="no"];
+    "Trace backwards" -> "Is this the source?";
+    "Is this the source?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="no - keeps going"];
+    "Is this the source?" -> "Fix at source" [label="yes"];
+    "Fix at source" -> "Add validation at each layer";
+    "Add validation at each layer" -> "Bug impossible";
+}
+```
+
+**NEVER fix just where the error appears.** Trace back to find the original trigger.
+
+## Stack Trace Tips
+
+**In tests:** Use `console.error()` not logger - logger may be suppressed
+**Before operation:** Log before the dangerous operation, not after it fails
+**Include context:** Directory, cwd, environment variables, timestamps
+**Capture stack:** `new Error().stack` shows complete call chain
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging session (2025-10-03):
+- Found root cause through 5-level trace
+- Fixed at source (getter validation)
+- Added 4 layers of defense
+- 1847 tests passed, zero pollution

package/template/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
+
+You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
+
+1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
+2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
+3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
+4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
+5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
+6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
+
+Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

package/template/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
+- Error rate: 100%
+- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
+- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
+
+Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
+
+You quickly check the logs and see:
+```
+PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
+```
+
+You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
+
+**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
+1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
+2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
+3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
+4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
+5. Then form hypothesis and test
+
+**But the quick fix:**
+- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
+- Deploy: 3 minutes
+- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
+- Every minute costs $15k
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
+- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
+- Another $525k lost during investigation
+- Manager will be furious
+- You look slow/incompetent
+
+**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
+- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
+- Stop the bleeding immediately
+- Investigate root cause after service restored
+- Save $450k vs Option A
+
+**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
+- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
+- If nothing obvious, add retry
+- Investigate properly after restore
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.

package/template/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
+
+The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
+```
+Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
+Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
+```
+
+**What you've tried:**
+1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
+2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
+3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
+4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
+5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
+6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
+
+You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
+
+**Two approaches:**
+
+**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
+- Stop guessing with timeouts
+- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
+- Understand WHY status isn't updating
+- Could take another 2-3 hours
+- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
+- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
+
+**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
+- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
+- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
+- Commit and go to dinner
+- File ticket to investigate later
+- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
+- Another 2-3 hours minimum
+- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
+- Miss dinner entirely
+- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
+- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
+
+**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
+- Stops the immediate bleeding
+- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
+- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
+- 4 hours not completely wasted
+- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
+
+**C) Quick investigation first**
+- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
+- If not obvious, use timeout solution
+- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
+- "Balanced" approach
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.

package/template/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're in a Zoom call with:
+- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
+- The tech lead
+- Two other developers
+
+You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
+
+**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
+
+**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
+
+**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
+
+**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
+
+**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
+
+Your systematic debugging skill says:
+- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
+- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
+- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
+
+But:
+- Senior has way more experience
+- Tech lead approved the approach
+- Everyone wants to end the call
+- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
+- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
+- Insist on following systematic process
+- Everyone frustrated with you
+- Senior engineer annoyed
+- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
+- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
+- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
+
+**B) Go along with senior's fix**
+- They have 10 years experience
+- Tech lead approved
+- Entire team wants to move forward
+- Being a "team player"
+- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
+
+**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
+- Quick 5-minute doc check
+- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
+- Shows you did "due diligence"
+- Doesn't waste too much time
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.

package/template/.claude/skills/tdd-workflow/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+---
+name: tdd-workflow
+description: Use this skill when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Enforces test-driven development with 80%+ coverage including unit, integration, and E2E tests.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development Workflow
+
+This skill ensures all code development follows TDD principles with comprehensive test coverage. It is stack-agnostic — after reading the methodology below, read the language reference matching your surface's Languages column.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- Writing new features or functionality
+- Fixing bugs or issues
+- Refactoring existing code
+- Adding API endpoints
+- Creating new components
+
+## Stack-Specific References
+
+After reading the methodology below, read the reference matching your surface's Languages column in the surface stack map (`.agent/instructions/tech-stack.md`):
+
+| Language | Reference |
+|----------|-----------|
+| TypeScript / JavaScript | `references/typescript.md` |
+| Python | `references/python.md` |
+| Go | `references/go.md` |
+| Rust | `references/rust.md` |
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### 1. Tests BEFORE Code
+ALWAYS write tests first, then implement code to make tests pass.
+
+### 2. Coverage Requirements
+- Minimum 80% coverage (unit + integration + E2E)
+- All edge cases covered
+- Error scenarios tested
+- Boundary conditions verified
+
+### 3. Test Types
+
+| Type | Scope | What to Test | Speed |
+|------|-------|-------------|-------|
+| **Unit** | Individual functions, pure logic, utilities | Input/output, edge cases, error paths | < 50ms each |
+| **Integration** | API endpoints, DB operations, service interactions | Request/response, validation, error handling | < 500ms each |
+| **E2E** | Full user flows, browser automation | Critical paths, complete workflows, UI interactions | < 30s each |
+
+## TDD Workflow Steps
+
+### Step 1: Write User Journeys
+```
+As a [role], I want to [action], so that [benefit]
+
+Example:
+As a user, I want to search for markets semantically,
+so that I can find relevant markets even without exact keywords.
+```
+
+### Step 2: Generate Test Cases
+For each user journey, identify test cases covering:
+- **Happy path** — expected input produces expected output
+- **Edge cases** — empty input, boundary values, large input
+- **Error paths** — invalid input, service failures, timeouts
+- **Fallback behavior** — what happens when dependencies fail
+
+Write these as test stubs that describe the behavior but don't implement yet. See language references for syntax.
+
+### Step 3: Run Tests (They Should Fail)
+Run the test suite. All new tests should fail — this is the **Red** phase. If any pass before you've written implementation, your test isn't testing what you think it is.
+
+### Step 4: Implement Code
+Write **minimal** code to make tests pass. Don't over-engineer. Don't add features the tests don't require.
+
+> **"Minimal" means correct, not shallow.** The implementation must be production-grade — proper error handling, type safety, input validation. "Minimal" means don't add features beyond what the tests verify, not "write the least amount of code possible regardless of quality."
+
+### Step 5: Run Tests Again (They Should Pass)
+Run the test suite. All tests should now pass — this is the **Green** phase.
+
+### Step 6: Refactor
+Improve code quality while keeping tests green:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve naming
+- Optimize performance
+- Enhance readability
+- Extract abstractions
+
+Run tests after every refactor to ensure nothing breaks.
+
+### Step 7: Verify Coverage
+Run coverage report. Verify 80%+ coverage achieved. Identify untested paths and add tests as needed.
+
+## Test File Organization
+
+Tests live next to their source files:
+
+```
+source-file.ext      → source-file.test.ext     (unit tests)
+route-handler.ext    → route-handler.test.ext   (integration tests)
+e2e/                 → feature-name.e2e.ext     (E2E tests)
+```
+
+## Mocking Strategy
+
+### When to Mock
+- External services (APIs, databases, caches) — always in unit tests
+- Time-dependent operations (dates, timers)
+- Non-deterministic operations (random, UUIDs)
+
+### When NOT to Mock
+- The module under test (circular logic)
+- Pure functions (just test them directly)
+- Everything in integration tests (that's the point)
+
+### Anti-Mock-Abuse Rules
+1. **Never mock what you own** — if you wrote the module, test it directly
+2. **One mock = one boundary** — only mock at the boundary between your code and external systems
+3. **Verify mock interactions** — assert that mocked dependencies were called with correct arguments
+4. **Mock return values, not internals** — mock the return value of a dependency, not its internal implementation
+
+## Assertion Depth Rules
+
+### ❌ Shallow Assertions (BANNED)
+- `expect(result).toBeDefined()` — proves nothing about correctness
+- `expect(result).toBeTruthy()` — empty arrays are truthy
+- `expect(response.status).toBe(200)` alone — doesn't verify response body
+
+### ✅ Deep Assertions (REQUIRED)
+- Assert on specific field values, not just existence
+- Assert on array lengths AND contents
+- Assert on error messages AND error codes
+- Assert on side effects (was the database actually updated?)
+
+Every test must assert:
+1. **The correct output** — specific values, not just types
+2. **The correct side effects** — what changed in the system
+3. **The correct error behavior** — specific error type and message
+
+## Common Testing Mistakes
+
+### Testing Implementation Details
+❌ Don't test internal state, private methods, or how code achieves the result.
+✅ Test what the user/caller observes — return values, rendered output, API responses.
+
+### Brittle Selectors (E2E)
+❌ CSS class selectors, nth-child, layout-dependent selectors.
+✅ Semantic selectors: roles, labels, test IDs, visible text.
+
+### Test Coupling
+❌ Tests that depend on execution order or shared state from previous tests.
+✅ Each test creates its own data and cleans up after itself.
+
+### Testing the Framework
+❌ Testing that React renders a component, or that Express routes requests.
+✅ Testing YOUR logic — the behavior your code adds on top of the framework.
+
+## Continuous Testing
+
+- **Watch mode during development** — tests re-run on file changes
+- **Pre-commit hooks** — tests must pass before commits
+- **CI/CD pipeline** — full test suite runs on every push
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Write Tests First** — Always TDD: Red → Green → Refactor
+2. **One Behavior Per Test** — Focus each test on a single behavior
+3. **Descriptive Test Names** — Test name should explain what behavior is verified
+4. **Arrange-Act-Assert** — Clear three-part test structure
+5. **Mock at Boundaries** — Only mock external dependencies
+6. **Test Edge Cases** — Null, empty, boundary values, large inputs
+7. **Test Error Paths** — Not just happy paths
+8. **Keep Tests Fast** — Unit tests < 50ms each
+9. **Clean Up After Tests** — No persistent side effects
+10. **Review Coverage Reports** — Identify and close gaps
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+- 80%+ code coverage achieved
+- All tests passing (green)
+- No skipped or disabled tests without `BOUNDARY:` tracking
+- Fast test execution (< 30s for unit suite)
+- E2E tests cover critical user flows
+- Tests catch bugs before production
+
+---
+
+**Remember**: Tests are not optional. They are the safety net that enables confident refactoring, rapid development, and production reliability.