codehava-agent-kit 1.0.1 → 3.0.0

package/templates/.agent/skills/writing-skills/testing-skills-with-subagents.md

@@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
+# Testing Skills With Subagents
+
+**Load this reference when:** creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization.
+
+## Overview
+
+**Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation.**
+
+You run scenarios without the skill (RED - watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN - watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR - stay compliant).
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures.
+
+**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill-specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables).
+
+**Complete worked example:** See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Test skills that:
+- Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements)
+- Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework)
+- Could be rationalized away ("just this once")
+- Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality)
+
+Don't test:
+- Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides)
+- Skills without rules to violate
+- Skills agents have no incentive to bypass
+
+## TDD Mapping for Skill Testing
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do |
+|-----------|---------------|-------------|
+| **RED** | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Pressure test | Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance |
+| **REFACTOR** | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Test again, ensure still compliant |
+
+Same cycle as code TDD, different test format.
+
+## RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail)
+
+**Goal:** Run test WITHOUT the skill - watch agent fail, document exact failures.
+
+This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" - you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
+
+**Process:**
+
+- [ ] **Create pressure scenarios** (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] **Run WITHOUT skill** - give agents realistic task with pressures
+- [ ] **Document choices and rationalizations** word-for-word
+- [ ] **Identify patterns** - which excuses appear repeatedly?
+- [ ] **Note effective pressures** - which scenarios trigger violations?
+
+**Example:**
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You spent 4 hours implementing a feature. It's working perfectly.
+You manually tested all edge cases. It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm.
+Code review tomorrow at 9am. You just realized you didn't write tests.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete code, start over with TDD tomorrow
+B) Commit now, write tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min delay)
+
+Choose A, B, or C.
+```
+
+Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes:
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve same goals"
+- "Deleting is wasteful"
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+**NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.**
+
+## GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass)
+
+Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases - write just enough to address the actual failures you observed.
+
+Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
+
+If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re-test.
+
+## VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing
+
+**Goal:** Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.
+
+**Method:** Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures.
+
+### Writing Pressure Scenarios
+
+**Bad scenario (no pressure):**
+```markdown
+You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?
+```
+Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.
+
+**Good scenario (single pressure):**
+```markdown
+Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
+fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?
+```
+Time pressure + authority + consequences.
+
+**Great scenario (multiple pressures):**
+```markdown
+You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
+It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
+Just realized you forgot TDD.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
+B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit
+
+Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.
+```
+
+Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences.
+Forces explicit choice.
+
+### Pressure Types
+
+| Pressure | Example |
+|----------|---------|
+| **Time** | Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing |
+| **Sunk cost** | Hours of work, "waste" to delete |
+| **Authority** | Senior says skip it, manager overrides |
+| **Economic** | Job, promotion, company survival at stake |
+| **Exhaustion** | End of day, already tired, want to go home |
+| **Social** | Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible |
+| **Pragmatic** | "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" |
+
+**Best tests combine 3+ pressures.**
+
+**Why this works:** See persuasion-principles.md (in writing-skills directory) for research on how authority, scarcity, and commitment principles increase compliance pressure.
+
+### Key Elements of Good Scenarios
+
+1. **Concrete options** - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
+2. **Real constraints** - Specific times, actual consequences
+3. **Real file paths** - `/tmp/payment-system` not "a project"
+4. **Make agent act** - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
+5. **No easy outs** - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing
+
+### Testing Setup
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
+Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
+
+You have access to: [skill-being-tested]
+```
+
+Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.
+
+## REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green)
+
+Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression - you need to refactor the skill to prevent it.
+
+**Capture new rationalizations verbatim:**
+- "This case is different because..."
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+- "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently"
+- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
+- "Deleting X hours is wasteful"
+- "Keep as reference while writing tests first"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+
+**Document every excuse.** These become your rationalization table.
+
+### Plugging Each Hole
+
+For each new rationalization, add:
+
+### 1. Explicit Negation in Rules
+
+<Before>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Before>
+
+<After>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+```
+</After>
+
+### 2. Entry in Rationalization Table
+
+```markdown
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+```
+
+### 3. Red Flag Entry
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+```
+
+### 4. Update description
+
+```yaml
+description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.
+```
+
+Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.
+
+### Re-verify After Refactoring
+
+**Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.**
+
+Agent should now:
+- Choose correct option
+- Cite new sections
+- Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed
+
+**If agent finds NEW rationalization:** Continue REFACTOR cycle.
+
+**If agent follows rule:** Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.
+
+## Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)
+
+**After agent chooses wrong option, ask:**
+
+```markdown
+your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.
+
+How could that skill have been written differently to make
+it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?
+```
+
+**Three possible responses:**
+
+1. **"The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"**
+   - Not documentation problem
+   - Need stronger foundational principle
+   - Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+
+2. **"The skill should have said X"**
+   - Documentation problem
+   - Add their suggestion verbatim
+
+3. **"I didn't see section Y"**
+   - Organization problem
+   - Make key points more prominent
+   - Add foundational principle early
+
+## When Skill is Bulletproof
+
+**Signs of bulletproof skill:**
+
+1. **Agent chooses correct option** under maximum pressure
+2. **Agent cites skill sections** as justification
+3. **Agent acknowledges temptation** but follows rule anyway
+4. **Meta-testing reveals** "skill was clear, I should follow it"
+
+**Not bulletproof if:**
+- Agent finds new rationalizations
+- Agent argues skill is wrong
+- Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
+- Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation
+
+## Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing
+
+### Initial Test (Failed)
+```markdown
+Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
+Agent chose: C (write tests after)
+Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"
+```
+
+### Iteration 1 - Add Counter
+```markdown
+Added section: "Why Order Matters"
+Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
+New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"
+```
+
+### Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle
+```markdown
+Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
+Cited: New principle directly
+Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"
+```
+
+**Bulletproof achieved.**
+
+## Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills)
+
+Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:
+
+**RED Phase:**
+- [ ] Created pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITHOUT skill (baseline)
+- [ ] Documented agent failures and rationalizations verbatim
+
+**GREEN Phase:**
+- [ ] Wrote skill addressing specific baseline failures
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITH skill
+- [ ] Agent now complies
+
+**REFACTOR Phase:**
+- [ ] Identified NEW rationalizations from testing
+- [ ] Added explicit counters for each loophole
+- [ ] Updated rationalization table
+- [ ] Updated red flags list
+- [ ] Updated description ith violation symptoms
+- [ ] Re-tested - agent still complies
+- [ ] Meta-tested to verify clarity
+- [ ] Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
+
+## Common Mistakes (Same as TDD)
+
+**❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED)**
+Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing.
+✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first.
+
+**❌ Not watching test fail properly**
+Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios.
+✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate.
+
+**❌ Weak test cases (single pressure)**
+Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple.
+✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion).
+
+**❌ Not capturing exact failures**
+"Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent.
+✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim.
+
+**❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters)**
+"Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does.
+✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization.
+
+**❌ Stopping after first pass**
+Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof.
+✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations.
+
+## Quick Reference (TDD Cycle)
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | Success Criteria |
+|-----------|---------------|------------------|
+| **RED** | Run scenario without skill | Agent fails, document rationalizations |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture exact wording | Verbatim documentation of failures |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill addressing failures | Agent now complies with skill |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Re-test scenarios | Agent follows rule under pressure |
+| **REFACTOR** | Close loopholes | Add counters for new rationalizations |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Agent still complies after refactoring |
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits.**
+
+If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents.
+
+RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for code.
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025-10-03):
+- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
+- Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations
+- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
+- Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
+- Same process works for any discipline-enforcing skill

package/templates/.agent/skills/zapier-make-patterns/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+name: zapier-make-patterns
+description: "You are a no-code automation architect who has built thousands of Zaps and Scenarios for businesses of all sizes. You've seen automations that save companies 40% of their time, and you've debugged disasters where bad data flowed through 12 connected apps."
+risk: unknown
+source: "vibeship-spawner-skills (Apache 2.0)"
+date_added: "2026-02-27"
+---
+
+# Zapier & Make Patterns
+
+You are a no-code automation architect who has built thousands of Zaps and
+Scenarios for businesses of all sizes. You've seen automations that save
+companies 40% of their time, and you've debugged disasters where bad data
+flowed through 12 connected apps.
+
+Your core insight: No-code is powerful but not unlimited. You know exactly
+when a workflow belongs in Zapier (simple, fast, maximum integrations),
+when it belongs in Make (complex branching, data transformation, budget),
+and when it needs to g
+
+## Capabilities
+
+- zapier
+- make
+- integromat
+- no-code-automation
+- zaps
+- scenarios
+- workflow-builders
+- business-process-automation
+
+## Patterns
+
+### Basic Trigger-Action Pattern
+
+Single trigger leads to one or more actions
+
+### Multi-Step Sequential Pattern
+
+Chain of actions executed in order
+
+### Conditional Branching Pattern
+
+Different actions based on conditions
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+### ❌ Text in Dropdown Fields
+
+### ❌ No Error Handling
+
+### ❌ Hardcoded Values
+
+## ⚠️ Sharp Edges
+
+| Issue | Severity | Solution |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| Issue | critical | # ALWAYS use dropdowns to select, don't type |
+| Issue | critical | # Prevention: |
+| Issue | high | # Understand the math: |
+| Issue | high | # When a Zap breaks after app update: |
+| Issue | high | # Immediate fix: |
+| Issue | medium | # Handle duplicates: |
+| Issue | medium | # Understand operation counting: |
+| Issue | medium | # Best practices: |
+
+## Related Skills
+
+Works well with: `workflow-automation`, `agent-tool-builder`, `backend`, `api-designer`
+
+## When to Use
+This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.

package/templates/.agent/workflows/add-type.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+description: |
+  Buat custom project type baru untuk /vibe-plan.
+  Gunakan saat 5 default types (Application, API/Backend, Campaign, Utility, Workflow)
+  tidak cocok dengan kategori project kamu, atau ada pola project berulang yang
+  butuh guided conversation sendiri. Output: 3 file di .agent/.shared/types/{type}/
+---
+
+# /add-type — Create Custom Project Type
+
+Extend /vibe-plan dengan project type baru yang sepenuhnya customizable.
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 1 — Nama Type
+
+```
+Berikan nama untuk project type baru kamu:
+- Format: lowercase, hyphen untuk spasi
+- Contoh: "chrome-extension", "microservice", "mobile-game", "saas-landing"
+- Singular (bukan plural)
+```
+
+Cek apakah type sudah ada di `.agent/.shared/types/`:
+- Jika sudah ada → "Type '[nama]' sudah ada. Mau edit yang existing atau buat nama baru?"
+- Jika belum ada → lanjut
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 2 — Definisikan Sections
+
+```
+List topik percakapan untuk type ini, dalam urutan prioritas:
+
+Contoh untuk "chrome-extension":
+1. Problem & Target User
+2. Extension Permissions
+3. Content Script vs Background Worker
+4. Storage Strategy (chrome.storage vs IndexedDB)
+5. Distribution (personal/team/Chrome Web Store)
+6. Done Criteria & Test Cases
+
+Rigor level:
+  tight    — Fast-moving, tahan scope creep (seperti Utility)
+  standard — Balanced exploration (seperti Workflow)
+  deep     — Thorough, architecture-focused (seperti Application)
+  creative — Generative, loose approach (seperti Campaign)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 3 — Generate 3 Files
+
+Buat di `.agent/.shared/types/[nama-type]/`:
+
+### File 1: guide.md
+
+```markdown
+# [Type Name] — Conversation Guide
+
+## Section 1: [Nama Section]
+**Explore:** [Pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang perlu dijawab untuk section ini]
+**Suggest:** [Rekomendasi proaktif jika user stuck — "For X, biasanya Y karena..."]
+**Depth:** required/optional
+
+## Section 2: [Nama Section]
+**Explore:** [...]
+**Suggest:** [...]
+**Depth:** required/optional
+
+[... ulangi untuk semua sections ...]
+```
+
+### File 2: config.md
+
+```markdown
+# [Type Name] — Configuration
+
+| Setting | Value |
+|---------|-------|
+| Rigor | [tight/standard/deep/creative] |
+| Demeanor | "[Deskripsi cara AI coaching untuk type ini]" |
+| Sections | [N] |
+
+## Required Sections
+- [Section 1]
+- [Section 2]
+...
+
+## Optional Sections
+- [Section N]
+```
+
+### File 3: skill-loadout.md
+
+```markdown
+# [Type Name] — Skill Loadout
+
+## Recommended Skills from 600+ Library
+
+| Skill | Priority | Why |
+|-------|----------|-----|
+| [skill-name] | required | [alasan] |
+| [skill-name] | recommended | [alasan] |
+| [skill-name] | optional | [alasan] |
+```
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 4 — Konfirmasi
+
+```
+✅ Custom type '[nama]' siap digunakan!
+
+Files dibuat:
+  .agent/.shared/types/[nama]/guide.md
+  .agent/.shared/types/[nama]/config.md
+  .agent/.shared/types/[nama]/skill-loadout.md
+
+Type baru langsung tersedia tanpa perlu modifikasi file lain.
+
+Test sekarang: /vibe-plan
+→ Saat ditanya project type, ketik '[nama]'
+```
+
+---
+
+## Aturan
+
+- Type baru tidak menimpa type default (composable design)
+- Rigor **tight** = aktif resist expansion — gunakan untuk single-purpose types
+- Rigor **deep** = butuh coverage luas sebelum graduate — untuk complex projects
+- Sections optional boleh di-skip jika user sudah punya jawabannya

package/templates/.agent/workflows/apply.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+description: |
+  Kerjakan semua task dalam plan satu per satu, verifikasi tiap task sebelum lanjut.
+  Gunakan setelah /vibe-plan atau /new-feature menghasilkan plan.
+  Selalu tutup dengan /unify setelah semua task selesai.
+---
+
+# /apply — Mengerjakan Plan
+
+Mulai mengerjakan semua task dalam plan. Setiap task dikerjakan dan dicek dulu sebelum lanjut ke task berikutnya.
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 1 — Cek Plan
+
+Baca PLANNING.md atau plan file yang tersedia. Jika tidak ada plan → tanya user: "Kamu mau mulai dari mana? Jelaskan fitur yang ingin dibangun."
+
+**Jika scope terlalu besar (6+ file atau tidak jelas):**
+> "Pekerjaan ini cukup besar. Saya sarankan kita bagi jadi dua bagian: [X] dulu, baru [Y]. Setuju?"
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 2 — Kerjakan Task Satu per Satu
+
+Untuk setiap task:
+
+### A: Baca task + syarat keberhasilan (internal)
+
+Baca task, acceptance criteria, dan file yang akan diubah. Lakukan ini secara internal — jangan tampilkan ke user.
+
+### B: Cari skill yang relevan (internal, silent)
+
+Search `.agent/skills/` untuk skill yang cocok. Baca dan apply expertise-nya tanpa memberi tahu user nama skillnya, kecuali relevan.
+
+### C: Kerjakan
+
+- Implement task
+- Hanya ubah file yang ada di daftar task
+- Jangan sentuh file yang tidak terkait
+
+### D: Verifikasi (internal, silent)
+
+Sebelum lanjut, pastikan secara diam-diam:
+1. File/function sudah benar-benar ada
+2. Ada logika nyata, bukan placeholder kosong
+3. Sudah terhubung ke bagian kode yang memanggilnya
+4. Data bisa mengalir dari awal sampai akhir
+
+### E: Laporkan ke user (plain language)
+
+```
+✅ [nama task] — selesai
+⚠️ [nama task] — selesai, ada catatan: [penjelasan sederhana]
+❓ Saya butuh tahu: [satu pertanyaan spesifik]
+🚫 Tidak bisa lanjut karena: [alasan jelas]. Kamu mau: A) [opsi A] atau B) [opsi B]?
+```
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 3 — Cek Keseluruhan (internal)
+
+Setelah semua task selesai, jalankan pengecekan internal (lint, type-check, test jika ada). Jika ada masalah, perbaiki dulu sebelum lapor ke user.
+
+---
+
+## Langkah 4 — Ringkasan ke User
+
+```
+✅ Semua selesai!
+
+Yang sudah dikerjakan:
+  - [nama task 1]
+  - [nama task 2]
+  - [nama task 3]
+
+[Jika ada catatan:]
+  ⚠️ [nama task]: [penjelasan catatan dalam bahasa sederhana]
+
+[Jika ada yang belum:]
+  ⏸️ [nama task]: menunggu keputusanmu — [pertanyaan/opsi]
+
+File yang diubah: [N] file
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+Langkah selanjutnya: ketik /unify untuk merangkum sesi ini.
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+```
+
+---
+
+## Aturan Penting
+
+- Kerjakan satu task sebelum mulai task berikutnya
+- Jika ada temuan di luar scope plan → catat, jangan fix langsung, tanya user dulu
+- Jangan tutup sesi tanpa `/unify`
+- Jika tidak bisa lanjut → selalu lapor dan minta keputusan, jangan diam-diam skip