codexkit 1.0.0

package/.codex/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,388 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code - write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass; ensures tests actually verify behavior by requiring failure first
+version: 1.0.0
+tags: [testing, workflow]
+dependencies: []
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Implementing new features or behavior changes
+- Fixing bugs that should be reproducible via a failing test first
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- Throwaway prototypes or generated code where tests are out of scope
+- Pure configuration edits with no executable behavior
+
+## TDD Checklist
+
+- [ ] Write a minimal failing test for one behavior
+- [ ] Run tests and confirm the new test fails for the expected reason
+- [ ] Write the minimal code to pass the test
+- [ ] Re-run tests and confirm all pass
+- [ ] Refactor only after green and keep tests passing
+
+## Overview
+
+Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
+
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the 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
+
+Implement fresh from tests. Period.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+```dot
+digraph tdd_cycle {
+    rankdir=LR;
+    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
+    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
+    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
+    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
+    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
+
+    red -> verify_red;
+    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
+    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
+    green -> verify_green;
+    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
+    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
+    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
+    verify_green -> next;
+    next -> red;
+}
+```
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
+  let attempts = 0;
+  const operation = () => {
+    attempts++;
+    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
+    return 'success';
+  };
+
+const result = await retryOperation(operation);
+
+expect(result).toBe('success');
+expect(attempts).toBe(3);
+});
+
+````
+Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+test('retry works', async () => {
+  const mock = jest.fn()
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
+  await retryOperation(mock);
+  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
+});
+````
+
+Vague name, tests mock not code
+</Bad>
+
+**Requirements:**
+
+- One behavior
+- Clear name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+Run the project's test command:
+
+```bash
+# Detect from project config:
+# package.json → npm test / vitest       | Cargo.toml → cargo test
+# pyproject.toml → pytest               | go.mod → go test ./...
+# pom.xml → mvn test                    | build.gradle → gradle test
+```
+
+Confirm:
+
+- Test fails (not errors)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
+
+**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN - Minimal Code
+
+Write simplest code to pass the test.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
+  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+    try {
+      return await fn();
+    } catch (e) {
+      if (i === 2) throw e;
+    }
+  }
+  throw new Error('unreachable');
+}
+```
+Just enough to pass
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(
+  fn: () => Promise<T>,
+  options?: {
+    maxRetries?: number;
+    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
+    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
+  }
+): Promise<T> {
+  // YAGNI
+}
+```
+Over-engineered
+</Bad>
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+Run the project's test command (same as Verify RED).
+
+Confirm:
+
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
+
+### REFACTOR - Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+
+Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next feature.
+
+## Good Tests
+
+| Quality          | Good                                | Bad                                                 |
+| ---------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Minimal**      | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear**        | Name describes behavior             | `test('test1')`                                     |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API            | Obscures what code should do                        |
+
+## Why Order Matters
+
+**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
+
+Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+
+- Might test wrong thing
+- Might test implementation, not behavior
+- Might miss edge cases you forgot
+- You never saw it catch the bug
+
+Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
+
+**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
+
+Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
+
+- No record of what you tested
+- Can't re-run when code changes
+- Easy to forget cases under pressure
+- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
+
+Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
+
+**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
+
+Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
+
+- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
+- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
+
+The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
+
+**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
+
+TDD IS pragmatic:
+
+- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
+- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
+- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
+- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
+
+"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
+
+**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
+
+No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
+
+Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
+
+Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
+
+30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse                                 | Reality                                                                 |
+| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| "Too simple to test"                   | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.                              |
+| "I'll test after"                      | Tests passing immediately prove nothing.                                |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals"       | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested"              | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.                           |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful"         | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.           |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.             |
+| "Need to explore first"                | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.                           |
+| "Test hard = design unclear"           | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.                             |
+| "TDD will slow me down"                | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.                      |
+| "Manual test faster"                   | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.           |
+| "Existing code has no tests"           | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.                       |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
+- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Example: Bug Fix
+
+**Bug:** Empty email accepted
+
+**RED**
+
+```typescript
+test("rejects empty email", async () => {
+  const result = await submitForm({ email: "" });
+  expect(result.error).toBe("Email required");
+});
+```
+
+**Verify RED**
+
+```bash
+$ <project test command>
+FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
+```
+
+**GREEN**
+
+```typescript
+function submitForm(data: FormData) {
+  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
+    return { error: "Email required" };
+  }
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+**Verify GREEN**
+
+```bash
+$ <project test command>
+PASS
+```
+
+**REFACTOR**
+Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+
+- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
+- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
+- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
+- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
+
+Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem                | Solution                                                             |
+| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Test too complicated   | Design too complicated. Simplify interface.                          |
+| Must mock everything   | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.                          |
+| Test setup huge        | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.                     |
+
+## Debugging Integration
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

package/.codex/skills/test-strategy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+---
+name: test-strategy
+description: Select and evaluate test approaches with practical quality criteria and anti-pattern checks.
+---
+# test-strategy
+
+## Purpose
+Choose the right testing scope and build a suite that protects user-visible behavior with fast, reliable feedback.
+
+## Use This Skill When
+- Deciding what to test for a change
+- Reviewing test quality and gaps
+- Adding tests for new features or bug fixes
+- Reducing flaky, low-signal tests
+
+## Workflow Phases
+1. Scope selection
+2. Case design
+3. Implementation
+4. Quality review
+
+## Expected Outputs
+- Scope decision (unit/integration/end-to-end)
+- Prioritized risk-based test cases
+- Assertion and fixture strategy
+- Flakiness controls and verification commands
+
+## Success Indicators
+- Critical behaviors are covered with high-signal tests
+- Regressions fail near source
+- Tests are deterministic and isolated
+- Runtime remains practical for local and CI loops
+
+## Scope Inputs
+- Change type (bugfix, feature, refactor)
+- Blast radius (single module vs cross-module)
+- User impact of affected behavior
+- Existing coverage and known regressions
+
+## Testing Decision Tree
+```text
+Start
+  |
+  +-- Pure logic, no IO?
+  |      +-- yes -> Unit test
+  |      +-- no -> continue
+  |
+  +-- Crosses module/system boundary?
+  |      +-- yes -> Integration test
+  |      +-- no -> Unit test with minimal stubs
+  |
+  +-- Validating full CLI/user contract?
+         +-- yes -> End-to-end test (small count)
+         +-- no -> Stay at integration level
+```
+
+## Test Pyramid Guidance
+| Layer | Validate | Typical Count | Cost | Diagnosis Speed |
+|---|---|---:|---:|---|
+| Unit | Rules and edge cases | High | Low | Fast |
+| Integration | Module contracts/side effects | Medium | Medium | Moderate |
+| End-to-end | Full workflow guarantees | Low | High | Slower |
+
+## Framework Guidance (TypeScript + Vitest)
+- Use Vitest for unit and integration tests.
+- Keep tests colocated (`*.test.ts`) near source.
+- Use `it.each` for boundary matrices.
+- Mock only external boundaries (fs/network/env).
+- Restore timers/mocks after each test.
+
+## Coverage Targets
+- Critical domain logic: 90%+ line coverage, strong branch checks.
+- Orchestration/command layers: 70-85%, behavior-first assertions.
+- Avoid chasing 100% global coverage at cost of signal.
+
+## Risk-Based Prioritization
+Score behavior by:
+- Impact if broken
+- Likelihood of regression
+- Detectability in production
+Prioritize high-impact, high-likelihood, low-detectability first.
+
+## Test Case Design Checklist
+- Happy path with realistic inputs
+- Failure path with meaningful error assertions
+- Boundary conditions (empty, invalid, max-size)
+- Idempotency/repeat-run where relevant
+- Regression case for known historical failures
+
+## Test File Organization Patterns
+### Pattern A: Colocated Module Tests
+- `src/commands/init.ts`
+- `src/commands/init.test.ts`
+Best for module-local behavior and command handlers.
+
+### Pattern B: Shared Fixtures
+- `src/<feature>/fixtures/*`
+- `src/<feature>/<module>.test.ts`
+Best for structured inputs reused across cases.
+
+### Pattern C: Integration Contracts
+- `src/<feature>/integration/*.test.ts`
+Best for boundary contracts and side effects.
+
+## Assertion Patterns
+- Assert user-visible outcomes, not call counts.
+- Assert structured errors for failure scenarios.
+- Prefer explicit semantic assertions over broad snapshots.
+- One behavioral intent per test name.
+
+## Mocking Rules
+- Mock external systems only.
+- Avoid mocking internal pure logic.
+- Keep mock behavior minimal and explicit.
+- Prefer lightweight fakes when mock complexity grows.
+
+## Flakiness Prevention
+- Replace sleeps with condition-based waiting.
+- Eliminate hidden shared state between tests.
+- Clean up files, timers, env mutations.
+- Re-run flaky candidates repeatedly before merge.
+
+```bash
+for i in {1..20}; do vitest src/path/to/file.test.ts || break; done
+```
+
+## Example Strategy A (Bug Fix)
+Change: fix null handling in parser.
+1. Add failing unit test for null/undefined.
+2. Add non-regression test for valid inputs.
+3. Implement minimal guard.
+4. Run focused tests + typecheck.
+
+## Example Strategy B (New Option)
+Change: add `--dry-run`.
+1. Unit tests for parsing matrix.
+2. Integration test for no-write side effects.
+3. One end-to-end invocation for command contract.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+| Anti-pattern | Why harmful | Better move |
+|---|---|---|
+| Testing private internals | Brittle under refactor | Test public behavior |
+| Snapshot-heavy suites | Low-signal diffs | Assert key semantic fields |
+| Mocking everything | False confidence | Use real internals, mock boundaries |
+| Giant integration test | Poor diagnosis | Split by contract boundary |
+| Bug fix without repro test | Regression returns | Add failing repro test first |
+
+## Quality Review Checklist
+- [ ] Names describe behavior, not implementation
+- [ ] Assertions validate observable outcomes
+- [ ] Failure paths covered for changed logic
+- [ ] Mocks limited to external boundaries
+- [ ] No flaky waits or order dependencies
+- [ ] Runtime fits local feedback loops
+
+## Recommended Verification Commands
+```bash
+vitest src/path/to/module.test.ts
+npm test
+npm run typecheck
+```
+
+## Output Format
+```markdown
+## Scope Decision
+- Unit/Integration/E2E + rationale
+
+## Prioritized Cases
+- P1:
+- P2:
+
+## Implementation Notes
+- fixture/mock strategy
+
+## Reliability Notes
+- flake risks + mitigation
+
+## Verification
+- commands + results
+```
+
+## Exit Conditions
+- Test plan maps directly to change risk.
+- Added tests fail on real regressions.
+- Verification commands are clear and reproducible.