code-ai-installer 1.3.1 → 1.4.0

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/testing_strategy_js/agents/qwen.json

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+{
+  "name": "testing_strategy_js",
+  "display_name": "JS/TS Testing Strategy",
+  "description": "Define a testing strategy for JS and TS projects - unit tests, integration tests, E2E tests, AAA structure, tooling, mocks, coverage thresholds, and CI integration.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $testing_strategy_js when the task matches the \"JS/TS Testing Strategy\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "testing_strategy_js",
+    "testing strategy js",
+    "JS/TS Testing Strategy",
+    "Define a testing strategy for JS and TS projects - unit tests, integration tests, E2E tests, AAA structure, tooling, mocks, coverage thresholds, and CI integration"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "testing",
+    "strategy",
+    "js"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/testing_strategy_js/agents/skill.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+version: 1
+name: "testing_strategy_js"
+display_name: "JS/TS Testing Strategy"
+description: "Define a testing strategy for JS and TS projects - unit tests, integration tests, E2E tests, AAA structure, tooling, mocks, coverage thresholds, and CI integration."
+default_prompt: "Use $testing_strategy_js when the task matches the \"JS/TS Testing Strategy\" skill."
+triggers:
+  - "testing_strategy_js"
+  - "testing strategy js"
+  - "JS/TS Testing Strategy"
+  - "Define a testing strategy for JS and TS projects - unit tests, integration tests, E2E tests, AAA structure, tooling, mocks, coverage thresholds, and CI integration"
+capabilities:
+  - "testing"
+  - "strategy"
+  - "js"
+tools: []
+invocation:
+  explicit: true
+  implicit: true
+localization:
+  default_locale: "en"
+  available_locales:
+    - "ru"
+    - "en"

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+---
+name: tests_quality_review
+description: Quality review of unit/integration tests — scenario coverage, boundaries, resilience, absence of flakes and test "magic". Prioritized checklist, good/bad test examples, output report template. Activate when reviewing existing tests, stabilizing flaky tests, or auditing test suite quality.
+---
+
+# Skill: Tests Quality Review
+
+Structured quality review of tests: checklist, priorities, examples of bad → good, report template.
+
+**Sections:**
+1. [When to activate](#1-when-to-activate)
+2. [Review Checklist](#2-review-checklist)
+3. [Examples: bad → good](#3-examples-bad--good)
+4. [Flaky tests: diagnosis](#4-flaky-tests-diagnosis)
+5. [Output report template](#5-output-report-template)
+
+---
+
+## 1. When to activate
+
+- REV gate — review tests as part of code review
+- After TDD iteration — check the quality of newly written tests
+- When stabilizing a flaky CI — find and fix fragile tests
+- During a coverage audit — focus on *what* is covered, not just the percentage
+
+---
+
+## 2. Review Checklist
+
+### A. Scenario Coverage (P0)
+
+| # | Check | Verdict |
+|---|---------|---------|
+| A1 | Tests verify **behavior**, not implementation details | ✅/❌ |
+| A2 | There is a **happy path** for every public method/component | ✅/❌ |
+| A3 | There are **error paths** (invalid input, network error, empty data) | ✅/❌ |
+| A4 | There are **edge cases** / boundaries (0, null, undefined, empty string, max) | ✅/❌ |
+| A5 | Async logic is tested (timeouts, rejects, race conditions) | ✅/❌ |
+
+### B. Resilience (P0)
+
+| # | Check | Verdict |
+|---|---------|---------|
+| B1 | Tests are **independent** (no hidden execution order) | ✅/❌ |
+| B2 | No **shared mutable state** between tests | ✅/❌ |
+| B3 | Each `beforeEach` / `afterEach` correctly cleans up state | ✅/❌ |
+| B4 | No dependency on **real time** (Date.now, setTimeout) | ✅/❌ |
+| B5 | No dependency on **network / file system** (everything is mocked) | ✅/❌ |
+
+### C. Test Code Quality (P1)
+
+| # | Check | Verdict |
+|---|---------|---------|
+| C1 | Test names are readable: `should [verb] when [condition]` | ✅/❌ |
+| C2 | AAA pattern (Arrange → Act → Assert) is clearly followed | ✅/❌ |
+| C3 | No **magic numbers/strings** without explanations | ✅/❌ |
+| C4 | No **duplication** (factories, helpers, shared fixtures are used) | ✅/❌ |
+| C5 | Assertions are **specific** (not `toBeTruthy()`, but `toBe(true)` / `toEqual(...)`) | ✅/❌ |
+
+### D. Integration Tests (P1)
+
+| # | Check | Verdict |
+|---|---------|---------|
+| D1 | **Actually** test integration (API/DB/contracts) | ✅/❌ |
+| D2 | Not "over-mocked" (mocks only on external boundaries) | ✅/❌ |
+| D3 | Contract tests verify **response shape**, not business logic | ✅/❌ |
+| D4 | Test data is **isolated** (no garbage from previous runs) | ✅/❌ |
+
+### E. Snapshot Tests (P2)
+
+| # | Check | Verdict |
+|---|---------|---------|
+| E1 | Snapshot is used **consciously** (for stable output) | ✅/❌ |
+| E2 | Snapshot is **compact** (not 500 lines) — inline preferred | ✅/❌ |
+| E3 | Snapshot update is not "auto-accept" (diff is reviewed) | ✅/❌ |
+
+---
+
+## 3. Examples: bad → good
+
+### A1. Behavior vs Implementation
+
+```js
+// ❌ Tests implementation: checks that internal method is called
+it('should call _processInternal', () => {
+  const spy = vi.spyOn(service, '_processInternal');
+  service.process(data);
+  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled();
+});
+
+// ✅ Tests behavior: checks result
+it('should return processed data with status "done"', () => {
+  const result = service.process({ items: [1, 2, 3] });
+  expect(result.status).toBe('done');
+  expect(result.processedCount).toBe(3);
+});
+```
+
+### B1. Test Independence
+
+```js
+// ❌ Test depends on previous — if first fails, second fails too
+let createdId;
+it('should create', () => { createdId = create(); });
+it('should read', () => { read(createdId); }); // dependency!
+
+// ✅ Each test is self-contained
+it('should read created item', () => {
+  const id = create({ name: 'test' });
+  const item = read(id);
+  expect(item.name).toBe('test');
+});
+```
+
+### B4. Time Dependency
+
+```js
+// ❌ Flaky — depends on execution speed
+it('should be within 1 second', () => {
+  const start = Date.now();
+  doWork();
+  expect(Date.now() - start).toBeLessThan(1000);
+});
+
+// ✅ Mock time
+it('should expire after timeout', () => {
+  vi.useFakeTimers();
+  const onExpire = vi.fn();
+
+  startTimer(onExpire, 5000);
+  vi.advanceTimersByTime(5000);
+
+  expect(onExpire).toHaveBeenCalledOnce();
+  vi.useRealTimers();
+});
+```
+
+### C3. Magic Values
+
+```js
+// ❌ What is 42?
+expect(calc(x)).toBe(42);
+
+// ✅ Value explained
+const BASE = 100;
+const TAX_RATE = 0.12;
+const DISCOUNT = 50;
+const EXPECTED = (BASE - DISCOUNT) * (1 + TAX_RATE); // 56
+expect(calcTotal(BASE, TAX_RATE, DISCOUNT)).toBe(EXPECTED);
+```
+
+### C5. Specific Assertions
+
+```js
+// ❌ toBeTruthy — undefined, 0, "" are also falsy → false negative test
+expect(result).toBeTruthy();
+expect(array.length).toBeTruthy(); // 0 is falsy, test will fail
+
+// ✅ Specific assertion
+expect(result).toBe(true);
+expect(array).toHaveLength(3);
+expect(obj).toMatchObject({ name: 'test', active: true });
+```
+
+### D2. Over-mocked integration tests
+
+```js
+// ❌ Mocked everything — this is no longer an integration test
+vi.mock('../db.js');
+vi.mock('../validator.js');
+vi.mock('../queue.js');
+
+it('should process order', async () => {
+  db.save.mockResolvedValue({ id: 1 });
+  validator.check.mockReturnValue(true);
+  queue.push.mockResolvedValue(undefined);
+
+  await processOrder({ item: 'X' });
+  expect(db.save).toHaveBeenCalled(); // testing mock, not logic
+});
+
+// ✅ Mock only external boundary (HTTP), rest is real
+vi.mock('../services/payment-gateway.js'); // only mock
+
+it('should process order and save to DB', async () => {
+  paymentGateway.charge.mockResolvedValue({ txnId: 'TX123' });
+
+  const result = await processOrder({ item: 'X', amount: 100 });
+
+  expect(result.status).toBe('completed');
+  const stored = await db.orders.findById(result.id);
+  expect(stored.paymentTxnId).toBe('TX123');
+});
+```
+
+---
+
+## 4. Flaky tests: diagnosis
+
+### Common Causes
+
+| Cause | Symptom | Fix |
+|---------|--------|-------------|
+| **Time dependency** | Passes/fails randomly | `vi.useFakeTimers()` |
+| **Shared state** | Fails with `--shuffle` or parallel run | Isolate state in `beforeEach` |
+| **External services** | Fails on slow network / offline run | Mock all HTTP |
+| **Race conditions** | Occasional timeouts | `await` / `waitFor` instead of `sleep` |
+| **Random data** | `Math.random()` in tests gives different results | Seed or mock random |
+| **Order dependency** | Passes solo, fails in suite | Remove shared state |
+| **Timer leaks** | `setTimeout` not cleared, affects next test | `afterEach(() => vi.clearAllTimers())` |
+
+### Flaky Check
+
+```bash
+# Run test 10 times — if at least 1 failure → flaky
+for i in $(seq 1 10); do npx vitest run --reporter=dot; done
+
+# Or via Vitest repeat
+npx vitest run --repeat=10
+```
+
+---
+
+## 5. Output report template
+
+```markdown
+# Tests Quality Review Report
+
+## Summary
+- **Module/Feature:** [name]
+- **Total tests:** [N]
+- **Coverage:** [X]% statements, [Y]% branches
+- **Verdict:** PASS ✅ / PASS with findings ⚠️ / FAIL ❌
+
+## Findings
+
+### P0 — Blockers
+| # | Checklist item | Problem | Recommendation |
+|---|----------------|---------|-------------|
+| 1 | A3 (error paths) | No tests for network errors in fetchItems | Add test with reject mock |
+
+### P1 — Important
+| # | Checklist item | Problem | Recommendation |
+|---|----------------|---------|-------------|
+| 1 | C3 (magic) | `expect(result).toBe(42)` without explanation | Extract to const with name |
+
+### P2 — Improvements
+| # | Checklist item | Problem | Recommendation |
+|---|----------------|---------|-------------|
+| 1 | E2 (snapshot size) | 200 line snapshot in ProductForm.test | Switch to inline snapshot or RTL assertion |
+
+## Missing Test Cases
+- [ ] `fetchItems` — error path (network failure)
+- [ ] `updateRecord` — edge case (empty name)
+- [ ] `CountdownTimer` — boundary (0 seconds remaining)
+
+## Fragile Tests
+| Test | Fragility cause | Recommendation |
+|------|-------------------|-------------|
+| `pricing.test.js:42` | Depends on Date.now | vi.useFakeTimers |
+```
+
+---
+
+## Verdict Criteria
+
+| Verdict | Conditions |
+|---------|---------|
+| **PASS ✅** | All P0 ✅, P1 ≤ 2 findings, no flaky |
+| **PASS with findings ⚠️** | All P0 ✅, but has P1 findings or missing cases | 
+| **FAIL ❌** | Any P0 ❌ (no error paths, tests dependent, flaky) |
+
+---
+
+## See also
+- `$testing_strategy_js` — strategy and patterns for writing tests
+- `$code_review_checklist` — general code review checklist
+- `$qa_e2e_playwright` — E2E via Playwright
+- `$dev_reference_snippets` — code examples

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/agents/claude.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "name": "tests_quality_review",
+  "display_name": "Tests Quality Review",
+  "description": "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $tests_quality_review when the task matches the \"Tests Quality Review\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "tests_quality_review",
+    "tests quality review",
+    "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "tests",
+    "quality",
+    "review"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/agents/copilot.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "name": "tests_quality_review",
+  "display_name": "Tests Quality Review",
+  "description": "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $tests_quality_review when the task matches the \"Tests Quality Review\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "tests_quality_review",
+    "tests quality review",
+    "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "tests",
+    "quality",
+    "review"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/agents/gemini.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "name": "tests_quality_review",
+  "display_name": "Tests Quality Review",
+  "description": "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $tests_quality_review when the task matches the \"Tests Quality Review\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "tests_quality_review",
+    "tests quality review",
+    "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "tests",
+    "quality",
+    "review"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Tests Quality Review"
+  short_description: "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risk…"
+  default_prompt: "Use $tests_quality_review when the task matches the \"Tests Quality Review\" skill."
+dependencies:
+  tools: []
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: true

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/agents/qwen.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "name": "tests_quality_review",
+  "display_name": "Tests Quality Review",
+  "description": "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $tests_quality_review when the task matches the \"Tests Quality Review\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "tests_quality_review",
+    "tests quality review",
+    "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "tests",
+    "quality",
+    "review"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/tests_quality_review/agents/skill.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+version: 1
+name: "tests_quality_review"
+display_name: "Tests Quality Review"
+description: "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings."
+default_prompt: "Use $tests_quality_review when the task matches the \"Tests Quality Review\" skill."
+triggers:
+  - "tests_quality_review"
+  - "tests quality review"
+  - "Review the quality of unit and integration tests - coverage, boundaries, resilience, flake risks, and checklist-based findings"
+capabilities:
+  - "tests"
+  - "quality"
+  - "review"
+tools: []
+invocation:
+  explicit: true
+  implicit: true
+localization:
+  default_locale: "en"
+  available_locales:
+    - "ru"
+    - "en"

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/threat_model_baseline/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+---
+name: threat_model_baseline
+description: Base threat model (threat baseline) for MVP — assets, attack vectors, measures. Considers OWASP risks and roles/permissions.
+---
+
+# Skill: Threat Model Baseline
+
+Embed security into the design before coding.
+
+**Sections:**
+1. [Principles](#1-principles)
+2. [Assets](#2-assets)
+3. [Attack Surfaces](#3-attack-surfaces)
+4. [Threat Table](#4-threat-table)
+5. [Risk Matrix](#5-risk-matrix)
+6. [OWASP Top 10 Checklist](#6-owasp)
+7. [Security Requirements](#7-requirements)
+8. [Example](#8-example)
+9. [Output Template](#9-output)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Principles
+
+| Principle | Description | Example |
+|---------|---------|--------|
+| **Defense in depth** | Multiple layers of defense | Validation + auth + sanitization |
+| **Least privilege** | Minimal permissions | DB user: readWrite only, no admin |
+| **Input validation at boundaries** | Trust no input | Zod schema on every endpoint |
+| **Secure by default** | Secure "out of the box" | CORS whitelist, Helmet on, strict CSP |
+| **Fail securely** | Error → secure state | Don't expose stack/DB errors |
+| **Audit trail** | Log critical operations | Install, settings change, content create |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Assets
+
+What we are protecting:
+
+| Asset | Sensitivity | Impact if compromised |
+|-------|-----------|----------------------|
+| **App settings** | Medium | Widget shows incorrect data |
+| **Sensitive content** | Medium | Unauthorized access to business data |
+| **appInstanceId/tokens** | High | Unauthorized access to any installation |
+| **Wix OAuth tokens** | High | Full API access to user's Wix site |
+| **DB credentials** | Critical | Full data access + modification |
+| **Webhook secrets** | High | Spoofed install/uninstall events |
+| **User PII (email)** | High (GDPR) | Compliance violation, reputation damage |
+| **Admin access** | Critical | Full system control |
+
+---
+
+## 3. Attack Surfaces
+
+| Surface | Endpoints/Components | Risk Level |
+|---------|---------------------|-----------|
+| **Public API** | Widget endpoint (no auth) | Medium |
+| **Dashboard API** | Settings/Content CRUD | High |
+| **Webhooks** | Install/Uninstall | High |
+| **Embedded Script** | JS on Wix sites | Medium |
+| **Dashboard UI** | Wix iframe | Medium |
+| **Database** | MongoDB connection | High |
+| **Docker/Infra** | Ports, volumes, certs | Medium |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Threat Table
+
+For each threat: description, impact, likelihood, severity, mitigation.
+
+| # | Threat | Surface | Impact | Likelihood | Severity | Mitigation | Status |
+|---|--------|---------|--------|-----------|----------|-----------|--------|
+| T-01 | **NoSQL Injection** | Dashboard API | High | Medium | 🔴 P0 | Safe filter builder, Zod validation, `strictQuery: true` | ☐ |
+| T-02 | **XSS via settings** | Embedded Script | High | Medium | 🔴 P0 | Sanitize all user input before rendering, CSP headers | ☐ |
+| T-03 | **Webhook spoofing** | Webhook endpoint | High | Low | 🟠 P1 | Verify JWT signature, validate payload structure | ☐ |
+| T-04 | **IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference)** | Dashboard API | High | Medium | 🔴 P0 | Verify appInstanceId belongs to authenticated user | ☐ |
+| T-05 | **Secrets in code/logs** | All | Critical | Medium | 🔴 P0 | Env vars only, pino redact, .gitignore | ☐ |
+| T-06 | **Brute force enumeration** | Widget endpoint | Medium | Low | 🟡 P2 | Rate limiting on widget endpoint | ☐ |
+| T-07 | **CSRF** | Dashboard API | Medium | Low | 🟠 P1 | SameSite cookies, origin check | ☐ |
+| T-08 | **Dependency supply chain** | npm packages | High | Low | 🟠 P1 | `npm audit`, lockfile, minimal deps | ☐ |
+| T-09 | **Man-in-the-middle** | All HTTP | High | Low | 🟠 P1 | HTTPS everywhere (Caddy), HSTS | ☐ |
+| T-10 | **Embed script injection** | Wix site | High | Low | 🟠 P1 | Script src from trusted origin only, no eval() | ☐ |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Risk Matrix
+
+### Impact × Likelihood
+
+```
+              │ Low Likelihood │ Medium │ High
+──────────────┼────────────────┼────────┼──────
+High Impact   │ 🟠 P1          │ 🔴 P0  │ 🔴 P0
+Medium Impact │ 🟡 P2          │ 🟠 P1  │ 🔴 P0
+Low Impact    │ 🟡 P2          │ 🟡 P2  │ 🟠 P1
+```
+
+### Severity actions
+
+| Severity | Action | Timeline |
+|----------|--------|----------|
+| 🔴 **P0** | Must fix before release | This sprint |
+| 🟠 **P1** | Fix in current iteration | Next 2 sprints |
+| 🟡 **P2** | Track in backlog | When resources allow |
+
+---
+
+## 6. OWASP Top 10 Checklist
+
+| # | OWASP Category | Relevant? | Mitigation | Status |
+|---|---------------|:---------:|-----------|--------|
+| A01 | **Broken Access Control** | ✅ | Auth middleware, IDOR check, role validation | ☐ |
+| A02 | **Cryptographic Failures** | ✅ | HTTPS, bcrypt for passwords, no secrets in logs | ☐ |
+| A03 | **Injection** | ✅ | Zod validation, safe filter builder, no eval() | ☐ |
+| A04 | **Insecure Design** | ✅ | Threat model (this doc), defense in depth | ☐ |
+| A05 | **Security Misconfiguration** | ✅ | Helmet, CORS whitelist, strict CSP, no debug in prod | ☐ |
+| A06 | **Vulnerable Components** | ✅ | npm audit, lockfile, minimal dependencies | ☐ |
+| A07 | **Auth Failures** | ⬜ | Wix handles auth (OAuth flow) | N/A |
+| A08 | **Data Integrity Failures** | ✅ | Webhook signature verification, input validation | ☐ |
+| A09 | **Logging Failures** | ✅ | Structured logs, request correlation, no PII in logs | ☐ |
+| A10 | **SSRF** | ⬜ | No user-controlled URL fetching | N/A |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Security Requirements
+
+### For implementation (DEV gate)
+
+| Requirement | Where | How to verify |
+|------------|-------|--------------|
+| Input validation on every endpoint | API middleware | Unit test: invalid input → 400 |
+| Auth check on protected endpoints | Auth middleware | Test: no token → 401 |
+| IDOR prevention | Controllers | Test: wrong appInstanceId → 403 |
+| Secure error responses | Error handler | Test: 500 → no stack in response |
+| Secrets via env only | Config module | grep: no hardcoded secrets |
+| Helmet + CORS | Express setup | Integration test: check headers |
+| PII redaction in logs | Pino config | Log output: no passwords/tokens |
+
+### For review (REV gate)
+
+| Requirement | How to verify |
+|------------|--------------|
+| No `eval()`, `Function()`, `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` without sanitize | grep |
+| No `eslint-disable-next-line` for security rules | grep |
+| `npm audit` clean (no high/critical) | `npm audit --audit-level=high` |
+| No TODO/FIXME related to security | grep `TODO.*secur\|FIXME.*auth` |
+
+---
+
+## 8. Example
+
+```markdown
+# Threat Model: SaaS Admin Panel
+
+## Key Assets
+- Admin credentials (sessions, API tokens)
+- Product/content data, user settings
+- DB credentials, external API keys
+
+## Top Threats (prioritized)
+1. 🔴 T-01: NoSQL injection via admin API → Zod + safe filter
+2. 🔴 T-04: IDOR on resources → verify ownership middleware
+3. 🔴 T-05: Secrets in code/logs → env vars + pino redact
+4. 🟠 T-03: CSRF on state-changing endpoints → SameSite + tokens
+5. 🟠 T-10: XSS in public content → sanitize user input
+
+## OWASP Coverage: 8/10 categories addressed (A07, A10 N/A)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 9. Output Template
+
+```markdown
+# Threat Model Baseline: <project-name>
+
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+**Scope:** <what's covered>
+
+## Assets
+<section 2 table>
+
+## Attack Surfaces
+<section 3 table>
+
+## Threats
+<section 4 table — prioritized by severity>
+
+## Risk Matrix
+<section 5>
+
+## OWASP Top 10
+<section 6 checklist>
+
+## Security Requirements
+<section 7 tables>
+
+## Summary
+- P0 threats: X (must fix before release)
+- P1 threats: Y (fix in current iteration)
+- P2 threats: Z (backlog)
+```
+
+---
+
+## See also
+- `$security_baseline_dev` — implementation patterns (Zod, Helmet, bcrypt)
+- `$security_review` — AppSec review checklist
+- `$api_contracts` — auth/error conventions
+- `$observability_logging` — PII redaction, audit logging

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/threat_model_baseline/agents/claude.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "name": "threat_model_baseline",
+  "display_name": "Threat Model Baseline",
+  "description": "Create a baseline threat model for an MVP - assets, attack vectors, mitigations, OWASP risks, and role-based access considerations.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $threat_model_baseline when the task matches the \"Threat Model Baseline\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "threat_model_baseline",
+    "threat model baseline",
+    "Create a baseline threat model for an MVP - assets, attack vectors, mitigations, OWASP risks, and role-based access considerations"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "threat",
+    "model",
+    "baseline"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/locales/en/.agents/skills/threat_model_baseline/agents/copilot.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "name": "threat_model_baseline",
+  "display_name": "Threat Model Baseline",
+  "description": "Create a baseline threat model for an MVP - assets, attack vectors, mitigations, OWASP risks, and role-based access considerations.",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $threat_model_baseline when the task matches the \"Threat Model Baseline\" skill.",
+  "triggers": [
+    "threat_model_baseline",
+    "threat model baseline",
+    "Create a baseline threat model for an MVP - assets, attack vectors, mitigations, OWASP risks, and role-based access considerations"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "threat",
+    "model",
+    "baseline"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}