claudecode-omc 4.9.4 → 5.0.0

package/bundled/upstream/superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
+  prompt: |
+    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
+
+    ## What Was Requested
+
+    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
+
+    ## What Implementer Claims They Built
+
+    [From implementer's report]
+
+    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
+
+    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
+    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
+
+    **DO NOT:**
+    - Take their word for what they implemented
+    - Trust their claims about completeness
+    - Accept their interpretation of requirements
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Read the actual code they wrote
+    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
+    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
+    - Look for extra features they didn't mention
+
+    ## Your Job
+
+    Read the implementation code and verify:
+
+    **Missing requirements:**
+    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
+    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
+    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
+
+    **Extra/unneeded work:**
+    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
+    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
+    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
+
+    **Misunderstandings:**
+    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
+    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
+    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?
+
+    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**
+
+    Report:
+    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
+    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
+```

package/bundled/upstream/superpowers/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/.claude/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 Claude 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/bundled/upstream/superpowers/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
+---
+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 `superpowers:test-driven-development` 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:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## 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

package/bundled/upstream/superpowers/skills/systematic-debugging/condition-based-waiting-example.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+// Complete implementation of condition-based waiting utilities
+// From: Lace test infrastructure improvements (2025-10-03)
+// Context: Fixed 15 flaky tests by replacing arbitrary timeouts
+
+import type { ThreadManager } from '~/threads/thread-manager';
+import type { LaceEvent, LaceEventType } from '~/threads/types';
+
+/**
+ * Wait for a specific event type to appear in thread
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param eventType - Type of event to wait for
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to the first matching event
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   await waitForEvent(threadManager, agentThreadId, 'TOOL_RESULT');
+ */
+export function waitForEvent(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  eventType: LaceEventType,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const event = events.find((e) => e.type === eventType);
+
+      if (event) {
+        resolve(event);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${eventType} event after ${timeoutMs}ms`));
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10); // Poll every 10ms for efficiency
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Wait for a specific number of events of a given type
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param eventType - Type of event to wait for
+ * @param count - Number of events to wait for
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to all matching events once count is reached
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   // Wait for 2 AGENT_MESSAGE events (initial response + continuation)
+ *   await waitForEventCount(threadManager, agentThreadId, 'AGENT_MESSAGE', 2);
+ */
+export function waitForEventCount(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  eventType: LaceEventType,
+  count: number,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent[]> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const matchingEvents = events.filter((e) => e.type === eventType);
+
+      if (matchingEvents.length >= count) {
+        resolve(matchingEvents);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(
+          new Error(
+            `Timeout waiting for ${count} ${eventType} events after ${timeoutMs}ms (got ${matchingEvents.length})`
+          )
+        );
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10);
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Wait for an event matching a custom predicate
+ * Useful when you need to check event data, not just type
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param predicate - Function that returns true when event matches
+ * @param description - Human-readable description for error messages
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to the first matching event
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   // Wait for TOOL_RESULT with specific ID
+ *   await waitForEventMatch(
+ *     threadManager,
+ *     agentThreadId,
+ *     (e) => e.type === 'TOOL_RESULT' && e.data.id === 'call_123',
+ *     'TOOL_RESULT with id=call_123'
+ *   );
+ */
+export function waitForEventMatch(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  predicate: (event: LaceEvent) => boolean,
+  description: string,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const event = events.find(predicate);
+
+      if (event) {
+        resolve(event);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${description} after ${timeoutMs}ms`));
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10);
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+// Usage example from actual debugging session:
+//
+// BEFORE (flaky):
+// ---------------
+// const messagePromise = agent.sendMessage('Execute tools');
+// await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 300)); // Hope tools start in 300ms
+// agent.abort();
+// await messagePromise;
+// await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 50));  // Hope results arrive in 50ms
+// expect(toolResults.length).toBe(2);         // Fails randomly
+//
+// AFTER (reliable):
+// ----------------
+// const messagePromise = agent.sendMessage('Execute tools');
+// await waitForEventCount(threadManager, threadId, 'TOOL_CALL', 2); // Wait for tools to start
+// agent.abort();
+// await messagePromise;
+// await waitForEventCount(threadManager, threadId, 'TOOL_RESULT', 2); // Wait for results
+// expect(toolResults.length).toBe(2); // Always succeeds
+//
+// Result: 60% pass rate → 100%, 40% faster execution