claude-code-pilot 3.0.0 → 3.1.0

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/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.