codingbuddy-rules 1.0.1 → 1.1.0

package/.ai-rules/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+---
+name: subagent-driven-development
+description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
+---
+
+# Subagent-Driven Development
+
+Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.
+
+**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Stay in this session?" [shape=diamond];
+    "subagent-driven-development" [shape=box];
+    "executing-plans" [shape=box];
+    "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];
+
+    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
+    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Stay in this session?" [label="yes"];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
+    "Stay in this session?" -> "subagent-driven-development" [label="yes"];
+    "Stay in this session?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - parallel session"];
+}
+```
+
+**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
+- Same session (no context switch)
+- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
+- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
+- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
+
+## The Process
+
+```dot
+digraph process {
+    rankdir=TB;
+
+    subgraph cluster_per_task {
+        label="Per Task";
+        "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
+        "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [shape=box];
+    }
+
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
+    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
+    "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
+
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
+    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
+    "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
+    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
+    "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
+    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
+    "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+}
+```
+
+## Prompt Templates
+
+- `./implementer-prompt.md` - Dispatch implementer subagent
+- `./spec-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
+- `./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
+
+## Example Workflow
+
+```
+You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
+
+[Read plan file once: docs/plans/feature-plan.md]
+[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
+[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]
+
+Task 1: Hook installation script
+
+[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
+[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
+
+Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
+
+You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
+
+Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
+[Later] Implementer:
+  - Implemented install-hook command
+  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
+  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
+  - Committed
+
+[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
+Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra
+
+[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
+Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
+
+[Mark Task 1 complete]
+
+Task 2: Recovery modes
+
+[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
+[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
+
+Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
+Implementer:
+  - Added verify/repair modes
+  - 8/8 tests passing
+  - Self-review: All good
+  - Committed
+
+[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
+Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
+  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
+  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
+
+[Implementer fixes issues]
+Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting
+
+[Spec reviewer reviews again]
+Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now
+
+[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
+Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
+
+[Implementer fixes]
+Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
+
+[Code reviewer reviews again]
+Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
+
+[Mark Task 2 complete]
+
+...
+
+[After all tasks]
+[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
+Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
+
+Done!
+```
+
+## Advantages
+
+**vs. Manual execution:**
+- Subagents follow TDD naturally
+- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
+- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
+- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
+
+**vs. Executing Plans:**
+- Same session (no handoff)
+- Continuous progress (no waiting)
+- Review checkpoints automatic
+
+**Efficiency gains:**
+- No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
+- Controller curates exactly what context is needed
+- Subagent gets complete information upfront
+- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
+
+**Quality gates:**
+- Self-review catches issues before handoff
+- Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
+- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
+- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
+- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
+
+**Cost:**
+- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
+- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
+- Review loops add iterations
+- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
+- Proceed with unfixed issues
+- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
+- Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
+- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
+- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
+- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
+- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
+- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
+- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order)
+- Move to next task while either review has open issues
+
+**If subagent asks questions:**
+- Answer clearly and completely
+- Provide additional context if needed
+- Don't rush them into implementation
+
+**If reviewer finds issues:**
+- Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
+- Reviewer reviews again
+- Repeat until approved
+- Don't skip the re-review
+
+**If subagent fails task:**
+- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
+- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)
+
+## Integration
+
+**Required workflow skills:**
+- **superpowers:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
+- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for reviewer subagents
+- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
+
+**Subagents should use:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - Subagents follow TDD for each task
+
+**Alternative workflow:**
+- **superpowers:executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution

package/.ai-rules/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