codeply-cli 0.1.1 → 0.3.0

package/skills/product-capability/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+---
+name: product-capability
+description: Translate PRD intent, roadmap asks, or product discussions into an implementation-ready capability plan that exposes constraints, invariants, interfaces, and unresolved decisions before multi-service work starts. Use when the user needs an ECC-native PRD-to-SRS lane instead of vague planning prose.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Product Capability
+
+This skill turns product intent into explicit engineering constraints.
+
+Use it when the gap is not "what should we build?" but "what exactly must be true before implementation starts?"
+
+## When to Use
+
+- A PRD, roadmap item, discussion, or founder note exists, but the implementation constraints are still implicit
+- A feature crosses multiple services, repos, or teams and needs a capability contract before coding
+- Product intent is clear, but architecture, data, lifecycle, or policy implications are still fuzzy
+- Senior engineers keep restating the same hidden assumptions during review
+- You need a reusable artifact that can survive across harnesses and sessions
+
+## Canonical Artifact
+
+If the repo has a durable product-context file such as `PRODUCT.md`, `docs/product/`, or a program-spec directory, update it there.
+
+If no capability manifest exists yet, create one using the template at:
+
+- `docs/examples/product-capability-template.md`
+
+The goal is not to create another planning stack. The goal is to make hidden capability constraints durable and reusable.
+
+## Non-Negotiable Rules
+
+- Do not invent product truth. Mark unresolved questions explicitly.
+- Separate user-visible promises from implementation details.
+- Call out what is fixed policy, what is architecture preference, and what is still open.
+- If the request conflicts with existing repo constraints, say so clearly instead of smoothing it over.
+- Prefer one reusable capability artifact over scattered ad hoc notes.
+
+## Inputs
+
+Read only what is needed:
+
+1. Product intent
+   - issue, discussion, PRD, roadmap note, founder message
+2. Current architecture
+   - relevant repo docs, contracts, schemas, routes, existing workflows
+3. Existing capability context
+   - `PRODUCT.md`, design docs, RFCs, migration notes, operating-model docs
+4. Delivery constraints
+   - auth, billing, compliance, rollout, backwards compatibility, performance, review policy
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+### 1. Restate the capability
+
+Compress the ask into one precise statement:
+
+- who the user or operator is
+- what new capability exists after this ships
+- what outcome changes because of it
+
+If this statement is weak, the implementation will drift.
+
+### 2. Resolve capability constraints
+
+Extract the constraints that must hold before implementation:
+
+- business rules
+- scope boundaries
+- invariants
+- trust boundaries
+- data ownership
+- lifecycle transitions
+- rollout / migration requirements
+- failure and recovery expectations
+
+These are the things that often live only in senior-engineer memory.
+
+### 3. Define the implementation-facing contract
+
+Produce an SRS-style capability plan with:
+
+- capability summary
+- explicit non-goals
+- actors and surfaces
+- required states and transitions
+- interfaces / inputs / outputs
+- data model implications
+- security / billing / policy constraints
+- observability and operator requirements
+- open questions blocking implementation
+
+### 4. Translate into execution
+
+End with the exact handoff:
+
+- ready for direct implementation
+- needs architecture review first
+- needs product clarification first
+
+If useful, point to the next ECC-native lane:
+
+- `project-flow-ops`
+- `workspace-surface-audit`
+- `api-connector-builder`
+- `dashboard-builder`
+- `tdd-workflow`
+- `verification-loop`
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return the result in this order:
+
+```text
+CAPABILITY
+- one-paragraph restatement
+
+CONSTRAINTS
+- fixed rules, invariants, and boundaries
+
+IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
+- actors
+- surfaces
+- states and transitions
+- interface/data implications
+
+NON-GOALS
+- what this lane explicitly does not own
+
+OPEN QUESTIONS
+- blockers or product decisions still required
+
+HANDOFF
+- what should happen next and which ECC lane should take it
+```
+
+## Good Outcomes
+
+- Product intent is now concrete enough to implement without rediscovering hidden constraints mid-PR.
+- Engineering review has a durable artifact instead of relying on memory or Slack context.
+- The resulting plan is reusable across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, and ECC 2.0 planning surfaces.

package/skills/product-lens/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: product-lens
+description: Use this skill to validate the "why" before building, run product diagnostics, and pressure-test product direction before the request becomes an implementation contract.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Product Lens — Think Before You Build
+
+This lane owns product diagnosis, not implementation-ready specification writing.
+
+If the user needs a durable PRD-to-SRS or capability-contract artifact, hand off to `product-capability`.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Before starting any feature — validate the "why"
+- Weekly product review — are we building the right thing?
+- When stuck choosing between features
+- Before a launch — sanity check the user journey
+- When converting a vague idea into a product brief before engineering planning starts
+
+## How It Works
+
+### Mode 1: Product Diagnostic
+
+Like YC office hours but automated. Asks the hard questions:
+
+```
+1. Who is this for? (specific person, not "developers")
+2. What's the pain? (quantify: how often, how bad, what do they do today?)
+3. Why now? (what changed that makes this possible/necessary?)
+4. What's the 10-star version? (if money/time were unlimited)
+5. What's the MVP? (smallest thing that proves the thesis)
+6. What's the anti-goal? (what are you explicitly NOT building?)
+7. How do you know it's working? (metric, not vibes)
+```
+
+Output: a `PRODUCT-BRIEF.md` with answers, risks, and a go/no-go recommendation.
+
+If the result is "yes, build this," the next lane is `product-capability`, not more founder-theater.
+
+### Mode 2: Founder Review
+
+Reviews your current project through a founder lens:
+
+```
+1. Read README, CLAUDE.md, package.json, recent commits
+2. Infer: what is this trying to be?
+3. Score: product-market fit signals (0-10)
+   - Usage growth trajectory
+   - Retention indicators (repeat contributors, return users)
+   - Revenue signals (pricing page, billing code, Stripe integration)
+   - Competitive moat (what's hard to copy?)
+4. Identify: the one thing that would 10x this
+5. Flag: things you're building that don't matter
+```
+
+### Mode 3: User Journey Audit
+
+Maps the actual user experience:
+
+```
+1. Clone/install the product as a new user
+2. Document every friction point (confusing steps, errors, missing docs)
+3. Time each step
+4. Compare to competitor onboarding
+5. Score: time-to-value (how long until the user gets their first win?)
+6. Recommend: top 3 fixes for onboarding
+```
+
+### Mode 4: Feature Prioritization
+
+When you have 10 ideas and need to pick 2:
+
+```
+1. List all candidate features
+2. Score each on: impact (1-5) × confidence (1-5) ÷ effort (1-5)
+3. Rank by ICE score
+4. Apply constraints: runway, team size, dependencies
+5. Output: prioritized roadmap with rationale
+```
+
+## Output
+
+All modes output actionable docs, not essays. Every recommendation has a specific next step.
+
+## Integration
+
+Pair with:
+- `/browser-qa` to verify the user journey audit findings
+- `/design-system audit` for visual polish assessment
+- `/canary-watch` for post-launch monitoring
+- `product-capability` when the product brief needs to become an implementation-ready capability plan

package/skills/production-audit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+---
+name: production-audit
+description: Local-evidence production readiness audit for shipped apps, pre-launch reviews, post-merge checks, and "what breaks in prod?" questions without sending repo data to an external audit service.
+metadata:
+  origin: community
+---
+
+# Production Audit
+
+Use this skill when the user asks whether an application is ready to ship, what
+could break in production, or what must be fixed before a launch. This is a
+maintainer-safe rewrite of the stale community production-audit idea: it keeps
+the useful production-readiness lens and removes unpinned external execution and
+third-party data sharing.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- The user asks "is this production-ready", "what would break in prod", "what
+  did we miss", "audit this repo", or "ready to ship?"
+- A feature was merged and needs a pre-deploy or post-merge risk pass.
+- A public launch, demo, customer rollout, or investor walkthrough is close.
+- CI is green but the user wants production risk, not only test status.
+- A deployed URL, release branch, PR, or current checkout is available for
+  evidence gathering.
+
+## When Not to Use
+
+- During active implementation when the right lens is line-level secure coding;
+  use `security-review` first.
+- For pure libraries, templates, docs-only repos, or scaffolds unless the user
+  wants packaging/release readiness rather than application readiness.
+- When the user asks for a formal compliance audit. This skill is engineering
+  triage, not legal, financial, medical, or regulatory certification.
+- When the only available evidence is a product idea with no repo, deployment,
+  CI, or runtime surface.
+
+## How It Works
+
+Build the audit from local and user-authorized evidence. Do not run unpinned
+remote code, upload repository contents to third-party services, or call
+external scanners unless the user explicitly approves that specific tool and
+data flow.
+
+Use this order:
+
+1. Establish the release surface.
+2. Read recent changes and current branch state.
+3. Inspect runtime, auth, data, payment, background-job, AI, and deployment
+   boundaries that actually exist in the repo.
+4. Check CI, tests, migrations, environment documentation, and rollback path.
+5. Produce a short ship/block recommendation with specific fixes.
+
+## Evidence Checklist
+
+Start with cheap, local signals:
+
+```text
+git status --short --branch
+git log --oneline --decorate -20
+git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD
+```
+
+Then inspect the project-specific surface:
+
+- Package scripts, CI workflows, release scripts, Docker files, and deployment
+  manifests.
+- API routes, webhooks, auth middleware, background workers, cron jobs, and
+  database migrations.
+- Environment variable documentation and startup checks.
+- Observability hooks, error reporting, logs, health checks, and dashboards.
+- Rollback, seed, migration, and backfill instructions.
+- E2E coverage for the user paths that matter most.
+
+If a deployed URL is in scope, use browser or HTTP checks only against that URL
+and avoid credentialed actions unless the user supplies a safe test account.
+
+## Risk Lenses
+
+### Security And Auth
+
+- Are public routes, API routes, and admin routes clearly separated?
+- Are auth and authorization enforced server-side?
+- Are secrets kept out of client bundles, logs, example output, and checked-in
+  files?
+- Are rate limits, CSRF protections, CORS policy, and upload validation present
+  where the app needs them?
+- Does the AI or agent surface defend against prompt injection, tool abuse, and
+  untrusted content crossing into privileged actions?
+
+### Data Integrity
+
+- Do migrations run forward cleanly and have a rollback or recovery plan?
+- Are destructive migrations, backfills, and data imports staged safely?
+- Do database policies, grants, and service-role boundaries match the app's
+  tenancy model?
+- Are retries idempotent for writes, jobs, and webhook handlers?
+
+### Payments And Webhooks
+
+- Are webhook signatures verified before parsing trusted payload fields?
+- Is each payment, subscription, or fulfillment webhook idempotent?
+- Are replay, duplicate delivery, and out-of-order delivery handled?
+- Are test-mode and live-mode credentials separated?
+
+### Operations
+
+- Can the app start from a clean checkout using documented commands?
+- Are required environment variables named, validated, and fail-fast?
+- Is there a health check that proves dependencies are reachable?
+- Are deploy, rollback, and incident-owner paths documented?
+- Are logs useful without leaking secrets or personal data?
+
+### User Experience
+
+- Are the launch-critical paths covered on desktop and mobile?
+- Are forms usable on mobile without input zoom, layout overlap, or blocked
+  submission states?
+- Do loading, empty, error, and permission-denied states tell the user what
+  happened?
+- Is there a support or recovery path when a critical operation fails?
+
+## Scoring
+
+Use scores to force prioritization, not to imply mathematical certainty.
+
+| Band | Score | Meaning |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Blocked | 0-49 | Do not ship until the top risks are fixed |
+| Risky | 50-69 | Ship only behind a small rollout or internal beta |
+| Launchable With Caveats | 70-84 | Ship if owners accept the listed risks |
+| Strong | 85-100 | No obvious launch blockers from available evidence |
+
+Cap the score at `69` if any of these are true:
+
+- Authentication or authorization is missing on sensitive data.
+- Payment or fulfillment webhooks are not idempotent.
+- Required migrations cannot be run safely.
+- Secrets are exposed in client bundles, logs, or committed files.
+- There is no rollback path for a high-impact release.
+
+Cap the score at `84` if CI is not green or the launch-critical path was not
+tested end to end.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Lead with one sentence:
+
+```text
+Production audit: 76/100, launchable with caveats, with webhook idempotency and rollback docs as the two risks to fix before public launch.
+```
+
+Then list:
+
+- `Blockers`: must-fix items before deploy.
+- `High-value fixes`: next fixes if the user wants to improve the score.
+- `Evidence checked`: files, commands, CI, deployed URL, or PRs inspected.
+- `Evidence missing`: what would change confidence if provided.
+- `Next action`: one concrete fix or verification step.
+
+Keep strengths short. The user asked for readiness, so the useful answer is the
+remaining risk and the next action.
+
+## Example
+
+User:
+
+```text
+is this ready to ship?
+```
+
+Response:
+
+```text
+Production audit: 68/100, risky, because Stripe webhooks are verified but not idempotent and there is no rollback note for the pending migration.
+
+Blockers:
+- Add idempotency for `checkout.session.completed` before fulfilling orders.
+- Write and test the rollback path for `20260511_add_billing_state.sql`.
+
+High-value fixes:
+- Add a health check that verifies database and payment-provider reachability.
+- Add one E2E path for upgrade, webhook fulfillment, and billing-page refresh.
+
+Evidence checked:
+- `api/stripe/webhook.ts`
+- `db/migrations/20260511_add_billing_state.sql`
+- GitHub Actions run for the release branch
+
+Next action: Want me to patch webhook idempotency first?
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- Running `npx <package>@latest` or a remote scanner as the default audit path.
+- Uploading source, secrets, customer data, or private topology to an external
+  audit service without explicit approval.
+- Producing a score without naming the evidence checked.
+- Treating green CI as production readiness.
+- Ending with a generic "let me know what you want to do."
+
+## See Also
+
+- Skill: `security-review`
+- Skill: `deployment-patterns`
+- Skill: `e2e-testing`
+- Skill: `tdd-workflow`
+- Skill: `verification-loop`