claude-code-pilot 2.0.0 → 3.1.0

package/src/skills/tdd-workflow/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,410 @@
+---
+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.
+origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development Workflow
+
+This skill ensures all code development follows TDD principles with comprehensive test coverage.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- Writing new features or functionality
+- Fixing bugs or issues
+- Refactoring existing code
+- Adding API endpoints
+- Creating new components
+
+## 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
+
+#### Unit Tests
+- Individual functions and utilities
+- Component logic
+- Pure functions
+- Helpers and utilities
+
+#### Integration Tests
+- API endpoints
+- Database operations
+- Service interactions
+- External API calls
+
+#### E2E Tests (Playwright)
+- Critical user flows
+- Complete workflows
+- Browser automation
+- UI interactions
+
+## 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, create comprehensive test cases:
+
+```typescript
+describe('Semantic Search', () => {
+  it('returns relevant markets for query', async () => {
+    // Test implementation
+  })
+
+  it('handles empty query gracefully', async () => {
+    // Test edge case
+  })
+
+  it('falls back to substring search when Redis unavailable', async () => {
+    // Test fallback behavior
+  })
+
+  it('sorts results by similarity score', async () => {
+    // Test sorting logic
+  })
+})
+```
+
+### Step 3: Run Tests (They Should Fail)
+```bash
+npm test
+# Tests should fail - we haven't implemented yet
+```
+
+### Step 4: Implement Code
+Write minimal code to make tests pass:
+
+```typescript
+// Implementation guided by tests
+export async function searchMarkets(query: string) {
+  // Implementation here
+}
+```
+
+### Step 5: Run Tests Again
+```bash
+npm test
+# Tests should now pass
+```
+
+### Step 6: Refactor
+Improve code quality while keeping tests green:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve naming
+- Optimize performance
+- Enhance readability
+
+### Step 7: Verify Coverage
+```bash
+npm run test:coverage
+# Verify 80%+ coverage achieved
+```
+
+## Testing Patterns
+
+### Unit Test Pattern (Jest/Vitest)
+```typescript
+import { render, screen, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react'
+import { Button } from './Button'
+
+describe('Button Component', () => {
+  it('renders with correct text', () => {
+    render(<Button>Click me</Button>)
+    expect(screen.getByText('Click me')).toBeInTheDocument()
+  })
+
+  it('calls onClick when clicked', () => {
+    const handleClick = jest.fn()
+    render(<Button onClick={handleClick}>Click</Button>)
+
+    fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button'))
+
+    expect(handleClick).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
+  })
+
+  it('is disabled when disabled prop is true', () => {
+    render(<Button disabled>Click</Button>)
+    expect(screen.getByRole('button')).toBeDisabled()
+  })
+})
+```
+
+### API Integration Test Pattern
+```typescript
+import { NextRequest } from 'next/server'
+import { GET } from './route'
+
+describe('GET /api/markets', () => {
+  it('returns markets successfully', async () => {
+    const request = new NextRequest('http://localhost/api/markets')
+    const response = await GET(request)
+    const data = await response.json()
+
+    expect(response.status).toBe(200)
+    expect(data.success).toBe(true)
+    expect(Array.isArray(data.data)).toBe(true)
+  })
+
+  it('validates query parameters', async () => {
+    const request = new NextRequest('http://localhost/api/markets?limit=invalid')
+    const response = await GET(request)
+
+    expect(response.status).toBe(400)
+  })
+
+  it('handles database errors gracefully', async () => {
+    // Mock database failure
+    const request = new NextRequest('http://localhost/api/markets')
+    // Test error handling
+  })
+})
+```
+
+### E2E Test Pattern (Playwright)
+```typescript
+import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test'
+
+test('user can search and filter markets', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Navigate to markets page
+  await page.goto('/')
+  await page.click('a[href="/markets"]')
+
+  // Verify page loaded
+  await expect(page.locator('h1')).toContainText('Markets')
+
+  // Search for markets
+  await page.fill('input[placeholder="Search markets"]', 'election')
+
+  // Wait for debounce and results
+  await page.waitForTimeout(600)
+
+  // Verify search results displayed
+  const results = page.locator('[data-testid="market-card"]')
+  await expect(results).toHaveCount(5, { timeout: 5000 })
+
+  // Verify results contain search term
+  const firstResult = results.first()
+  await expect(firstResult).toContainText('election', { ignoreCase: true })
+
+  // Filter by status
+  await page.click('button:has-text("Active")')
+
+  // Verify filtered results
+  await expect(results).toHaveCount(3)
+})
+
+test('user can create a new market', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Login first
+  await page.goto('/creator-dashboard')
+
+  // Fill market creation form
+  await page.fill('input[name="name"]', 'Test Market')
+  await page.fill('textarea[name="description"]', 'Test description')
+  await page.fill('input[name="endDate"]', '2025-12-31')
+
+  // Submit form
+  await page.click('button[type="submit"]')
+
+  // Verify success message
+  await expect(page.locator('text=Market created successfully')).toBeVisible()
+
+  // Verify redirect to market page
+  await expect(page).toHaveURL(/\/markets\/test-market/)
+})
+```
+
+## Test File Organization
+
+```
+src/
+├── components/
+│   ├── Button/
+│   │   ├── Button.tsx
+│   │   ├── Button.test.tsx          # Unit tests
+│   │   └── Button.stories.tsx       # Storybook
+│   └── MarketCard/
+│       ├── MarketCard.tsx
+│       └── MarketCard.test.tsx
+├── app/
+│   └── api/
+│       └── markets/
+│           ├── route.ts
+│           └── route.test.ts         # Integration tests
+└── e2e/
+    ├── markets.spec.ts               # E2E tests
+    ├── trading.spec.ts
+    └── auth.spec.ts
+```
+
+## Mocking External Services
+
+### Supabase Mock
+```typescript
+jest.mock('@/lib/supabase', () => ({
+  supabase: {
+    from: jest.fn(() => ({
+      select: jest.fn(() => ({
+        eq: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve({
+          data: [{ id: 1, name: 'Test Market' }],
+          error: null
+        }))
+      }))
+    }))
+  }
+}))
+```
+
+### Redis Mock
+```typescript
+jest.mock('@/lib/redis', () => ({
+  searchMarketsByVector: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve([
+    { slug: 'test-market', similarity_score: 0.95 }
+  ])),
+  checkRedisHealth: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve({ connected: true }))
+}))
+```
+
+### OpenAI Mock
+```typescript
+jest.mock('@/lib/openai', () => ({
+  generateEmbedding: jest.fn(() => Promise.resolve(
+    new Array(1536).fill(0.1) // Mock 1536-dim embedding
+  ))
+}))
+```
+
+## Test Coverage Verification
+
+### Run Coverage Report
+```bash
+npm run test:coverage
+```
+
+### Coverage Thresholds
+```json
+{
+  "jest": {
+    "coverageThresholds": {
+      "global": {
+        "branches": 80,
+        "functions": 80,
+        "lines": 80,
+        "statements": 80
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Common Testing Mistakes to Avoid
+
+### ❌ WRONG: Testing Implementation Details
+```typescript
+// Don't test internal state
+expect(component.state.count).toBe(5)
+```
+
+### ✅ CORRECT: Test User-Visible Behavior
+```typescript
+// Test what users see
+expect(screen.getByText('Count: 5')).toBeInTheDocument()
+```
+
+### ❌ WRONG: Brittle Selectors
+```typescript
+// Breaks easily
+await page.click('.css-class-xyz')
+```
+
+### ✅ CORRECT: Semantic Selectors
+```typescript
+// Resilient to changes
+await page.click('button:has-text("Submit")')
+await page.click('[data-testid="submit-button"]')
+```
+
+### ❌ WRONG: No Test Isolation
+```typescript
+// Tests depend on each other
+test('creates user', () => { /* ... */ })
+test('updates same user', () => { /* depends on previous test */ })
+```
+
+### ✅ CORRECT: Independent Tests
+```typescript
+// Each test sets up its own data
+test('creates user', () => {
+  const user = createTestUser()
+  // Test logic
+})
+
+test('updates user', () => {
+  const user = createTestUser()
+  // Update logic
+})
+```
+
+## Continuous Testing
+
+### Watch Mode During Development
+```bash
+npm test -- --watch
+# Tests run automatically on file changes
+```
+
+### Pre-Commit Hook
+```bash
+# Runs before every commit
+npm test && npm run lint
+```
+
+### CI/CD Integration
+```yaml
+# GitHub Actions
+- name: Run Tests
+  run: npm test -- --coverage
+- name: Upload Coverage
+  uses: codecov/codecov-action@v3
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Write Tests First** - Always TDD
+2. **One Assert Per Test** - Focus on single behavior
+3. **Descriptive Test Names** - Explain what's tested
+4. **Arrange-Act-Assert** - Clear test structure
+5. **Mock External Dependencies** - Isolate unit tests
+6. **Test Edge Cases** - Null, undefined, empty, large
+7. **Test Error Paths** - Not just happy paths
+8. **Keep Tests Fast** - Unit tests < 50ms each
+9. **Clean Up After Tests** - No side effects
+10. **Review Coverage Reports** - Identify gaps
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+- 80%+ code coverage achieved
+- All tests passing (green)
+- No skipped or disabled tests
+- Fast test execution (< 30s for unit tests)
+- 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.

package/src/skills/token-budget-advisor/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+name: token-budget-advisor
+description: >-
+  Offers the user an informed choice about how much response depth to
+  consume before answering. Use this skill when the user explicitly
+  wants to control response length, depth, or token budget.
+  TRIGGER when: "token budget", "token count", "token usage", "token limit",
+  "response length", "answer depth", "short version", "brief answer",
+  "detailed answer", "exhaustive answer", "respuesta corta vs larga",
+  "cuántos tokens", "ahorrar tokens", "responde al 50%", "dame la versión
+  corta", "quiero controlar cuánto usas", or clear variants where the
+  user is explicitly asking to control answer size or depth.
+  DO NOT TRIGGER when: user has already specified a level in the current
+  session (maintain it), the request is clearly a one-word answer, or
+  "token" refers to auth/session/payment tokens rather than response size.
+origin: community
+---
+
+# Token Budget Advisor (TBA)
+
+Intercept the response flow to offer the user a choice about response depth **before** Claude answers.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- User wants to control how long or detailed a response is
+- User mentions tokens, budget, depth, or response length
+- User says "short version", "tldr", "brief", "al 25%", "exhaustive", etc.
+- Any time the user wants to choose depth/detail level upfront
+
+**Do not trigger** when: user already set a level this session (maintain it silently), or the answer is trivially one line.
+
+## How It Works
+
+### Step 1 — Estimate input tokens
+
+Use the repository's canonical context-budget heuristics to estimate the prompt's token count mentally.
+
+Use the same calibration guidance as [context-budget](../context-budget/SKILL.md):
+
+- prose: `words × 1.3`
+- code-heavy or mixed/code blocks: `chars / 4`
+
+For mixed content, use the dominant content type and keep the estimate heuristic.
+
+### Step 2 — Estimate response size by complexity
+
+Classify the prompt, then apply the multiplier range to get the full response window:
+
+| Complexity   | Multiplier range | Example prompts                                      |
+|--------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
+| Simple       | 3× – 8×          | "What is X?", yes/no, single fact                   |
+| Medium       | 8× – 20×         | "How does X work?"                                  |
+| Medium-High  | 10× – 25×        | Code request with context                           |
+| Complex      | 15× – 40×        | Multi-part analysis, comparisons, architecture      |
+| Creative     | 10× – 30×        | Stories, essays, narrative writing                  |
+
+Response window = `input_tokens × mult_min` to `input_tokens × mult_max` (but don’t exceed your model’s configured output-token limit).
+
+### Step 3 — Present depth options
+
+Present this block **before** answering, using the actual estimated numbers:
+
+```
+Analyzing your prompt...
+
+Input: ~[N] tokens  |  Type: [type]  |  Complexity: [level]  |  Language: [lang]
+
+Choose your depth level:
+
+[1] Essential   (25%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Direct answer only, no preamble
+[2] Moderate    (50%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Answer + context + 1 example
+[3] Detailed    (75%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Full answer with alternatives
+[4] Exhaustive (100%)  ->  ~[tokens]   Everything, no limits
+
+Which level? (1-4 or say "25% depth", "50% depth", "75% depth", "100% depth")
+
+Precision: heuristic estimate ~85-90% accuracy (±15%).
+```
+
+Level token estimates (within the response window):
+- 25%  → `min + (max - min) × 0.25`
+- 50%  → `min + (max - min) × 0.50`
+- 75%  → `min + (max - min) × 0.75`
+- 100% → `max`
+
+### Step 4 — Respond at the chosen level
+
+| Level            | Target length       | Include                                             | Omit                                              |
+|------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
+| 25% Essential    | 2-4 sentences max   | Direct answer, key conclusion                       | Context, examples, nuance, alternatives           |
+| 50% Moderate     | 1-3 paragraphs      | Answer + necessary context + 1 example              | Deep analysis, edge cases, references             |
+| 75% Detailed     | Structured response | Multiple examples, pros/cons, alternatives          | Extreme edge cases, exhaustive references         |
+| 100% Exhaustive  | No restriction      | Everything — full analysis, all code, all perspectives | Nothing                                        |
+
+## Shortcuts — skip the question
+
+If the user already signals a level, respond at that level immediately without asking:
+
+| What they say                                      | Level |
+|----------------------------------------------------|-------|
+| "1" / "25% depth" / "short version" / "brief answer" / "tldr"  | 25%   |
+| "2" / "50% depth" / "moderate depth" / "balanced answer"        | 50%   |
+| "3" / "75% depth" / "detailed answer" / "thorough answer"       | 75%   |
+| "4" / "100% depth" / "exhaustive answer" / "full deep dive"     | 100%  |
+
+If the user set a level earlier in the session, **maintain it silently** for subsequent responses unless they change it.
+
+## Precision note
+
+This skill uses heuristic estimation — no real tokenizer. Accuracy ~85-90%, variance ±15%. Always show the disclaimer.
+
+## Examples
+
+### Triggers
+
+- "Give me the short version first."
+- "How many tokens will your answer use?"
+- "Respond at 50% depth."
+- "I want the exhaustive answer, not the summary."
+- "Dame la version corta y luego la detallada."
+
+### Does Not Trigger
+
+- "What is a JWT token?"
+- "The checkout flow uses a payment token."
+- "Is this normal?"
+- "Complete the refactor."
+- Follow-up questions after the user already chose a depth for the session
+
+## Source
+
+Standalone skill from [TBA — Token Budget Advisor for Claude Code](https://github.com/Xabilimon1/Token-Budget-Advisor-Claude-Code-).
+Original project also ships a Python estimator script, but this repository keeps the skill self-contained and heuristic-only.

package/{ecc/skills/verification-loop-SKILL.md → src/skills/verification-loop/SKILL.md}

@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Set a mental checkpoint:
 - After finishing a component
 - Before moving to next task
 
-Run: /verify
+Run: /ccp:verify
 ```
 
 ## Integration with Hooks

package/src/skills/workspace-surface-audit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+---
+name: workspace-surface-audit
+description: Audit the active repo, MCP servers, plugins, connectors, env surfaces, and harness setup, then recommend the highest-value ECC-native skills, hooks, agents, and operator workflows. Use when the user wants help setting up Claude Code or understanding what capabilities are actually available in their environment.
+origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Workspace Surface Audit
+
+Read-only audit skill for answering the question "what can this workspace and machine actually do right now, and what should we add or enable next?"
+
+This is the ECC-native answer to setup-audit plugins. It does not modify files unless the user explicitly asks for follow-up implementation.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- User says "set up Claude Code", "recommend automations", "what plugins or MCPs should I use?", or "what am I missing?"
+- Auditing a machine or repo before installing more skills, hooks, or connectors
+- Comparing official marketplace plugins against ECC-native coverage
+- Reviewing `.env`, `.mcp.json`, plugin settings, or connected-app surfaces to find missing workflow layers
+- Deciding whether a capability should be a skill, hook, agent, MCP, or external connector
+
+## Non-Negotiable Rules
+
+- Never print secret values. Surface only provider names, capability names, file paths, and whether a key or config exists.
+- Prefer ECC-native workflows over generic "install another plugin" advice when ECC can reasonably own the surface.
+- Treat external plugins as benchmarks and inspiration, not authoritative product boundaries.
+- Separate three things clearly:
+  - already available now
+  - available but not wrapped well in ECC
+  - not available and would require a new integration
+
+## Audit Inputs
+
+Inspect only the files and settings needed to answer the question well:
+
+1. Repo surface
+   - `package.json`, lockfiles, language markers, framework config, `README.md`
+   - `.mcp.json`, `.lsp.json`, `.claude/settings*.json`, `.codex/*`
+   - `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, install manifests, hook configs
+2. Environment surface
+   - `.env*` files in the active repo and obvious adjacent ECC workspaces
+   - Surface only key names such as `STRIPE_API_KEY`, `TWILIO_AUTH_TOKEN`, `FAL_KEY`
+3. Connected tool surface
+   - Installed plugins, enabled connectors, MCP servers, LSPs, and app integrations
+4. ECC surface
+   - Existing skills, commands, hooks, agents, and install modules that already cover the need
+
+## Audit Process
+
+### Phase 1: Inventory What Exists
+
+Produce a compact inventory:
+
+- active harness targets
+- installed plugins and connected apps
+- configured MCP servers
+- configured LSP servers
+- env-backed services implied by key names
+- existing ECC skills already relevant to the workspace
+
+If a surface exists only as a primitive, call that out. Example:
+
+- "Stripe is available via connected app, but ECC lacks a billing-operator skill"
+- "Google Drive is connected, but there is no ECC-native Google Workspace operator workflow"
+
+### Phase 2: Benchmark Against Official and Installed Surfaces
+
+Compare the workspace against:
+
+- official Claude plugins that overlap with setup, review, docs, design, or workflow quality
+- locally installed plugins in Claude or Codex
+- the user's currently connected app surfaces
+
+Do not just list names. For each comparison, answer:
+
+1. what they actually do
+2. whether ECC already has parity
+3. whether ECC only has primitives
+4. whether ECC is missing the workflow entirely
+
+### Phase 3: Turn Gaps Into ECC Decisions
+
+For every real gap, recommend the correct ECC-native shape:
+
+| Gap Type | Preferred ECC Shape |
+|----------|---------------------|
+| Repeatable operator workflow | Skill |
+| Automatic enforcement or side-effect | Hook |
+| Specialized delegated role | Agent |
+| External tool bridge | MCP server or connector |
+| Install/bootstrap guidance | Setup or audit skill |
+
+Default to user-facing skills that orchestrate existing tools when the need is operational rather than infrastructural.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return five sections in this order:
+
+1. **Current surface**
+   - what is already usable right now
+2. **Parity**
+   - where ECC already matches or exceeds the benchmark
+3. **Primitive-only gaps**
+   - tools exist, but ECC lacks a clean operator skill
+4. **Missing integrations**
+   - capability not available yet
+5. **Top 3-5 next moves**
+   - concrete ECC-native additions, ordered by impact
+
+## Recommendation Rules
+
+- Recommend at most 1-2 highest-value ideas per category.
+- Favor skills with obvious user intent and business value:
+  - setup audit
+  - billing/customer ops
+  - issue/program ops
+  - Google Workspace ops
+  - deployment/ops control
+- If a connector is company-specific, recommend it only when it is genuinely available or clearly useful to the user's workflow.
+- If ECC already has a strong primitive, propose a wrapper skill instead of inventing a brand-new subsystem.
+
+## Good Outcomes
+
+- The user can immediately see what is connected, what is missing, and what ECC should own next.
+- Recommendations are specific enough to implement in the repo without another discovery pass.
+- The final answer is organized around workflows, not API brands.

package/ecc/scripts/hooks/session-end-marker.js

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env node
-'use strict';
-
-const MAX_STDIN = 1024 * 1024;
-let raw = '';
-process.stdin.setEncoding('utf8');
-process.stdin.on('data', chunk => {
-  if (raw.length < MAX_STDIN) {
-    const remaining = MAX_STDIN - raw.length;
-    raw += chunk.substring(0, remaining);
-  }
-});
-process.stdin.on('end', () => {
-  process.stdout.write(raw);
-});