cfsa-antigravity 3.0.2 → 3.1.0

package/template/.codex/skills/spec-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+---
+name: spec-writing
+description: Methodology for writing complete, unambiguous IA, BE, and FE specification documents in the CFSA pipeline. Covers completeness testing, progressive section writing, cross-reference checking, and ambiguity gate application.
+---
+
+# Spec Writing
+
+This skill encodes the shared writing methodology for IA, BE, and FE spec documents in the CFSA pipeline, and is invoked by all `write-*-spec-write.md` and `decompose-architecture-validate.md` workflows.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Writing any IA shard, BE spec, or FE spec
+- Any time the agent writes a section that will be consumed by a downstream pipeline stage
+- Whenever performing a completeness self-check before proposing review
+
+## Instructions
+
+### 1. Progressive Section-by-Section Writing Pattern
+
+Write one section at a time in document order. Before writing section N+1, re-read section N and verify it against the upstream source document:
+
+- For BE specs, the upstream source is the IA shard
+- For FE specs, the upstream source is the BE spec
+- For IA shards, the upstream sources are `ideation-index.md` (+ the relevant domain folder's `*-index.md`, `*-cx.md`, and feature files) and `architecture-design.md`
+
+**Hard rules:**
+
+- Never leave a section as a stub, a placeholder, or a "TBD" — a section boundary is a hard stop, not a TODO marker.
+- If a section cannot be completed from available upstream context, trigger the ambiguity gate (Step 4) before proceeding.
+- Do not advance to section N+1 until section N passes the two-implementer completeness test (Step 2).
+
+### 2. Two-Implementer Completeness Test
+
+After writing each section, apply this test:
+
+> *"Would two independent, competent developers reading only this section produce the same implementation?"*
+
+If the answer is "probably not," the section is incomplete regardless of how much text it contains.
+
+Apply the test to each element type in turn:
+
+- **Fields** — every field must have a type and default
+- **Endpoints** — every endpoint must have success response shape and all error codes
+- **State transitions** — every state transition must have a named trigger and a named outcome
+- **Permissions** — every permission must identify a subject (role), an object (resource), and the allowed operation
+
+A section passes when no element requires a developer to make an undocumented choice.
+
+### 3. Cross-Reference Checking
+
+After completing the full draft, perform two cross-reference passes:
+
+#### IA → BE Pass
+
+For every data model entity and every state transition in the IA shard, verify a corresponding BE spec section exists. For every field in an IA data model, verify it appears in a BE endpoint request or response schema or a storage schema.
+
+Document each gap as:
+
+```
+COVERAGE GAP: IA shard [name] § [section] → no corresponding BE spec section found.
+```
+
+#### BE → FE Pass
+
+For every BE endpoint, verify every response field is referenced in the FE spec (in a component prop, display element, or form field). Verify every error code the endpoint can return has an explicit FE handling entry (error boundary, toast, inline error state).
+
+Document each gap as:
+
+```
+MAPPING GAP: BE endpoint [name] field [field] → not referenced in FE spec.
+```
+
+### 4. Ambiguity Gate Trigger Conditions
+
+Hard-stop spec writing and raise to the user if any of the following are true:
+
+**(a)** A requirement cannot be resolved from `.memory/wiki/specs/ideation/ideation-index.md`, `.memory/wiki/specs/architecture-design.md`, or the upstream spec document for the current layer — it is not a judgment the spec writer can make.
+
+**(b)** Two valid, meaningfully different implementations exist for a requirement and neither is obviously more correct given the upstream context.
+
+**(c)** A security or access control decision requires explicit product confirmation — never silently default a permission, role binding, or data exposure boundary.
+
+When triggered, write:
+
+```
+AMBIGUITY GATE: [layer] § [section] — [requirement] — [two options if applicable] — awaiting user decision.
+```
+
+### 5. Spec Quality Rubric
+
+A spec section is complete when all four element classes are fully specified:
+
+**(a) Fields** — every field has name, type, nullable/optional flag, default value or "no default", and validation constraints.
+
+**(b) Endpoints** — every endpoint has method, path, auth requirement, request schema, success response with HTTP code and body shape, and all error codes with their conditions.
+
+**(c) State transitions** — every transition has a named trigger event, a pre-condition, a post-condition, and any side-effects (emails sent, events emitted, records written).
+
+**(d) Permissions** — every access control rule specifies subject role, target resource, allowed operation(s), and the condition under which access is denied.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Placeholder sections** — Writing placeholder sections ("details TBD") rather than stopping at the ambiguity gate. If you cannot complete a section, trigger Step 4 — do not leave a stub.
+- **End-only completeness testing** — Applying the two-implementer test only at the end rather than section-by-section. The test must be applied after every section, not as a final pass.
+- **Skipping cross-reference checking** — Skipping cross-reference checking because "the layers are being written by the same session." Cross-reference checking is mandatory regardless of authorship.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **`pipeline-rubrics`** — Use when you need the formal scoring rubrics for evaluating spec quality across all five pipeline layers. The rubric in Step 5 of this skill defines *what* completeness means; `pipeline-rubrics` provides the *scoring framework* for quantifying it during audits.
+- **`technical-writer`** — Use when the spec content is complete but needs clarity, structure, or formatting improvements. This skill governs *what to write*; `technical-writer` governs *how to present it* for maximum readability and consumability.

package/template/.codex/skills/sync-kit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+name: sync-kit
+description: Semantically merge upstream kit changes while preserving project-specific values and recording sync state
+parameters:
+  - name: upstream
+    type: string
+    required: false
+    description: Optional upstream repository URL override
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+
+## Step-by-Step
+
+1. Read `.codex/kit-sync.md` state and validate baseline.
+2. Fetch upstream and diff changed files since last synced commit.
+3. Classify changes (net-new, overwrite-safe, semantic-merge required, project-only).
+4. Apply semantic merges for placeholder/value-bearing files.
+5. Copy net-new files and run ideation-structure migration checks.
+6. Audit project-only files for integration gaps.
+7. Validate, review diff, and scan for unresolved placeholders.
+8. Update `.codex/kit-sync.md` with new commit/version/timestamp.

package/template/.codex/skills/systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
+
+Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
+
+## Source Material
+
+Extracted debugging framework from `/Users/jesse/.codex/CLAUDE.md`:
+- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
+- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
+- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
+
+## Extraction Decisions
+
+**What to include:**
+- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
+- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
+- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
+- Concrete steps for each phase
+
+**What to leave out:**
+- Project-specific context
+- Repetitive variations of same rule
+- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
+
+## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
+
+1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
+2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
+3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
+4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
+5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
+6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
+
+## Bulletproofing Elements
+
+Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
+
+### Language Choices
+- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
+- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
+- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
+- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
+
+### Structural Defenses
+- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
+- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
+- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
+- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
+
+### Redundancy
+- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
+- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
+- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
+
+## Testing Approach
+
+Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
+
+### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
+- Simple bug, no time pressure
+- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
+
+### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
+- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
+- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
+
+### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
+- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
+- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
+
+### Test 4: Failed First Fix
+- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
+- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
+
+**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
+
+## Iterations
+
+### Initial Version
+- Complete 4-phase framework
+- Anti-patterns section
+- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
+
+### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
+- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
+- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
+- Prevents confusion between methodologies
+
+## Final Outcome
+
+Bulletproof skill that:
+- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
+- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
+- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
+- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
+- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
+- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
+- ✅ Ready for use
+
+## Key Insight
+
+**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Codex thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
+
+## Usage Example
+
+When encountering a bug:
+1. Load skill: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
+3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
+4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
+5. Complete all phases - root cause found
+
+**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
+**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
+
+---
+
+*Created: 2025-10-03*
+*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*

package/template/.codex/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
+---
+name: systematic-debugging
+description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
+---
+
+# Systematic Debugging
+
+## Overview
+
+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
+**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
+
+**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
+```
+
+If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use for ANY technical issue:
+- Test failures
+- Bugs in production
+- Unexpected behavior
+- Performance problems
+- Build failures
+- Integration issues
+
+**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
+- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
+- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
+- You've already tried multiple fixes
+- Previous fix didn't work
+- You don't fully understand the issue
+
+**Don't skip when:**
+- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
+- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
+- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
+
+## The Four Phases
+
+You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
+
+### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
+
+1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
+   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
+   - They often contain the exact solution
+   - Read stack traces completely
+   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
+
+2. **Reproduce Consistently**
+   - Can you trigger it reliably?
+   - What are the exact steps?
+   - Does it happen every time?
+   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
+
+3. **Check Recent Changes**
+   - What changed that could cause this?
+   - Git diff, recent commits
+   - New dependencies, config changes
+   - Environmental differences
+
+4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
+
+   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
+
+   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+   ```
+   For EACH component boundary:
+     - Log what data enters component
+     - Log what data exits component
+     - Verify environment/config propagation
+     - Check state at each layer
+
+   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
+   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
+   THEN investigate that specific component
+   ```
+
+   **Example (multi-layer system):**
+   ```bash
+   # Layer 1: Workflow
+   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
+   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
+
+   # Layer 2: Build script
+   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
+   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
+
+   # Layer 3: Signing script
+   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
+   security list-keychains
+   security find-identity -v
+
+   # Layer 4: Actual signing
+   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
+   ```
+
+   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
+
+5. **Trace Data Flow**
+
+   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+
+   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
+
+   **Quick version:**
+   - Where does bad value originate?
+   - What called this with bad value?
+   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
+   - Fix at source, not at symptom
+
+### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Find the pattern before fixing:**
+
+1. **Find Working Examples**
+   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
+   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
+
+2. **Compare Against References**
+   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
+   - Don't skim - read every line
+   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
+
+3. **Identify Differences**
+   - What's different between working and broken?
+   - List every difference, however small
+   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
+
+4. **Understand Dependencies**
+   - What other components does this need?
+   - What settings, config, environment?
+   - What assumptions does it make?
+
+### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+**Scientific method:**
+
+1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
+   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
+   - Write it down
+   - Be specific, not vague
+
+2. **Test Minimally**
+   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
+   - One variable at a time
+   - Don't fix multiple things at once
+
+3. **Verify Before Continuing**
+   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
+   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
+   - DON'T add more fixes on top
+
+4. **When You Don't Know**
+   - Say "I don't understand X"
+   - Don't pretend to know
+   - Ask for help
+   - Research more
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation
+
+**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
+
+1. **Create Failing Test Case**
+   - Simplest possible reproduction
+   - Automated test if possible
+   - One-off test script if no framework
+   - MUST have before fixing
+   - Use the `tdd-workflow` skill for writing proper failing tests
+
+2. **Implement Single Fix**
+   - Address the root cause identified
+   - ONE change at a time
+   - No "while I'm here" improvements
+   - No bundled refactoring
+
+3. **Verify Fix**
+   - Test passes now?
+   - No other tests broken?
+   - Issue actually resolved?
+
+4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
+   - STOP
+   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
+   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
+   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
+   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
+
+5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
+
+   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
+   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+
+   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
+   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
+   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
+   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
+
+   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
+
+If you catch yourself thinking:
+- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
+- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
+- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
+- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
+- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
+- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
+- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
+- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
+- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
+
+## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
+
+**Watch for these redirections:**
+- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
+- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
+- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
+- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
+- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
+
+**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
+|-------|---------------|------------------|
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
+
+## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
+
+If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
+
+1. You've completed the process
+2. Document what you investigated
+3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
+4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
+
+**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
+
+## Supporting Techniques
+
+These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
+
+- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
+- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
+- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
+
+**Related skills:**
+- **tdd-workflow** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **session-continuity** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+- **parallel-debugging** - When you have 2+ independent failures across different subsystems, dispatch parallel agents each following THIS skill's four-phase process
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common