cokit-cli 1.2.6 → 1.3.0

package/skills/code-review/references/code-review-reception.md

@@ -1,209 +1,113 @@
 ---
 name: receiving-code-review
-description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement
 ---
 
 # Code Review Reception
 
-## Overview
-
-Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
-
 **Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
 
-## The Response Pattern
+## Response Pattern
 
 ```
-WHEN receiving code review feedback:
-
 1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
-2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
+2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement (or ask)
 3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
 4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
 5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
-6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
+6. IMPLEMENT: One at a time, test each
 ```
 
 ## Forbidden Responses
 
-**NEVER:**
-- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit config violation)
-- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
-- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
+❌ "You're absolutely right!" / "Great point!" / "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
 
-**INSTEAD:**
-- Restate the technical requirement
-- Ask clarifying questions
-- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
-- Just start working (actions > words)
+✅ Restate technical requirement
+✅ Ask clarifying questions
+✅ Push back with technical reasoning
+✅ Just start working (actions > words)
 
 ## Handling Unclear Feedback
 
 ```
-IF any item is unclear:
-  STOP - do not implement anything yet
-  ASK for clarification on unclear items
+IF any item unclear:
+  STOP - don't implement anything
+  ASK for clarification on ALL unclear items
 
 WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
 ```
 
-**Example:**
-```
-your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-
-❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
-✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
-```
-
 ## Source-Specific Handling
 
-### From your human partner
-- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
-- **Still ask** if scope unclear
-- **No performative agreement**
-- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
+**Human partner:** Trusted - implement after understanding, no performative agreement
 
-### From External Reviewers
+**External reviewers:**
 ```
 BEFORE implementing:
-  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
-  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
-  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
-  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
-  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
-
-IF suggestion seems wrong:
-  Push back with technical reasoning
-
-IF can't easily verify:
-  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+  1. Technically correct for THIS codebase?
+  2. Breaks existing functionality?
+  3. Reason for current implementation?
+  4. Works all platforms/versions?
 
-IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
-  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+IF wrong: Push back with technical reasoning
+IF can't verify: State limitation, ask direction
+IF conflicts with partner's decisions: Stop, discuss first
 ```
 
-**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
-
-## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
+## YAGNI Check
 
 ```
 IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
   grep codebase for actual usage
-
-  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
-  IF used: Then implement properly
+  IF unused: "This isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
+  IF used: Implement properly
 ```
 
-**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
-
 ## Implementation Order
 
 ```
-FOR multi-item feedback:
-  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
-  2. Then implement in this order:
-     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
-     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
-     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
-  3. Test each fix individually
-  4. Verify no regressions
+1. Clarify unclear items FIRST
+2. Implement: blocking → simple → complex
+3. Test each individually
+4. Verify no regressions
 ```
 
 ## When To Push Back
 
-Push back when:
-- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
+- Breaks existing functionality
 - Reviewer lacks full context
 - Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
-- Technically incorrect for this stack
-- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
-- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+- Technically incorrect for stack
+- Legacy/compatibility reasons
+- Conflicts with architectural decisions
 
-**How to push back:**
-- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
-- Ask specific questions
-- Reference working tests/code
-- Involve your human partner if architectural
-
-**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+**How:** Technical reasoning, specific questions, reference working tests
 
 ## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
 
-When feedback IS correct:
-```
-✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
-✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
-✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
-
-❌ "You're absolutely right!"
-❌ "Great point!"
-❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
-❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
-❌ ANY gratitude expression
-```
-
-**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+✅ "Fixed. [Brief description]"
+✅ "Good catch - [issue]. Fixed in [location]."
+✅ Just fix it (actions > words)
 
-**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+❌ ANY gratitude or performative expression
 
-## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
+## Correcting Wrong Pushback
 
-If you pushed back and were wrong:
-```
-✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
-✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
+✅ "You were right - checked [X], it does [Y]. Implementing."
+❌ Long apology, defending, over-explaining
 
-❌ Long apology
-❌ Defending why you pushed back
-❌ Over-explaining
-```
-
-State the correction factually and move on.
-
-## Common Mistakes
+## Quick Reference
 
 | Mistake | Fix |
 |---------|-----|
-| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
-| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
-| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
-| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
+| Performative agreement | State requirement or act |
+| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase |
+| Batch without testing | One at a time |
+| Assuming reviewer right | Check if breaks things |
 | Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
-| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
-| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
-
-## Real Examples
 
-**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
-```
-
-**Technical Verification (Good):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
-```
-
-**YAGNI (Good):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
-✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
-```
-
-**Unclear Item (Good):**
-```
-your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
-```
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+## Bottom Line
 
+External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders.
 Verify. Question. Then implement.
-
-No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/skills/code-review/references/codebase-scan-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Codebase Scan Workflow
+
+Think harder to scan the codebase and analyze it follow the Orchestration Protocol, Core Responsibilities, Subagents Team and Development Rules:
+<tasks>$ARGUMENTS</tasks>
+
+## Role Responsibilities
+- You are an elite software engineering expert who specializes in system architecture design and technical decision-making.
+- You operate by: **YAGNI**, **KISS**, and **DRY**.
+- Sacrifice grammar for concision. List unresolved questions at end.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Research
+* Use 2 `researcher` subagents in parallel to search up to 5 sources
+* Keep every research report concise (≤150 lines)
+* Use `/ck-scout` skill invocation to search the codebase
+
+### Code Review
+* Use multiple `code-reviewer` subagents in parallel to review code
+* If issues found, ask main agent to improve and repeat until tests pass
+* When complete, run adversarial review (see `adversarial-review.md`) — always-on, no exceptions
+* Report combined quality + adversarial findings to user
+
+### Plan
+* Use `planner` subagent to analyze reports and create improvement plan
+* Save overview at `plan.md`, phase files as `phase-XX-phase-name.md`
+
+### Final Report
+* Summary of changes, guide user to get started, suggest next steps
+* Ask user if they want to commit and push

package/skills/code-review/references/edge-case-scouting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+---
+name: edge-case-scouting
+description: Use after implementation, before code review to proactively find edge cases, side effects, and potential issues via scout skill - catches problems code-reviewer might miss
+---
+
+# Edge Case Scouting
+
+Proactive detection of edge cases, side effects, and potential issues before code review.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Code reviews catch obvious issues but miss subtle side effects. Scout detects:
+- Files affected by changes reviewer might not check
+- Data flow paths that could break
+- Boundary conditions and error paths
+- Integration issues across modules
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Mandatory:** Multi-file features, shared utility refactors, complex bug fixes
+**Optional:** Single-file changes, docs, config
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Identify Changed Files
+```bash
+git diff --name-only HEAD~1
+```
+
+### 2. Invoke Scout
+```
+/ck-scout edge cases for recent changes.
+
+Changed: {files from git diff}
+
+Find:
+1. Files importing/depending on changed modules
+2. Data flow paths through modified functions
+3. Error handling paths not tested
+4. Boundary conditions (null, empty, max)
+5. Race conditions in async code
+6. State management side effects
+```
+
+### 3. Analyze & Act
+
+| Finding | Action |
+|---------|--------|
+| Affected file not in scope | Add to review |
+| Data flow risk | Verify or add test |
+| Edge case | Add test or verify |
+| Missing test | Add before review |
+
+### 4. Document for Review
+```
+Scout findings:
+- {issues found}
+- Verified: {what checked}
+- Addressed: {what fixed}
+- Needs review: {remaining}
+```
+
+## Scout Prompts
+
+**Feature:**
+```
+Scout edge cases for {feature}.
+Changed: {files}
+Find: consumers, error states, untested inputs, performance, compatibility
+```
+
+**Bug fix:**
+```
+Scout side effects of fix in {file}.
+Bug: {description}, Fix: {approach}
+Find: other paths using logic, dependent features, similar bugs
+```
+
+**Refactor:**
+```
+Scout breaking changes in {module}.
+Before: {old}, After: {new}
+Find: importers, behavior diffs, removed functionality
+```
+
+## What Scout Catches
+
+| Issue | Why Missed | Scout Detects |
+|-------|------------|---------------|
+| Indirect deps | Not in diff | Traces imports |
+| Race conditions | Hard static review | Analyzes flow |
+| State mutations | Hidden side effects | Tracks data |
+| Missing null checks | Assumed safe | Boundary analysis |
+| Integration breaks | Out of scope | Cross-module search |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Shared utility changed but only one caller tested
+- Error path leads to unhandled rejection
+- State modified in place without notification
+- Breaking change without migration
+
+## Example
+
+```
+1. Done: Add cache to UserService.getUser()
+2. Diff: src/services/user-service.ts
+3. Scout: "edge cases for caching in getUser()"
+4. Report:
+   - ProfileComponent expects fresh data on edit
+   - AdminPanel loops getUser() (memory risk)
+   - No cache clear on updateUser()
+5. Fix: Add invalidation, maxSize
+6. Document for code-reviewer
+```
+
+## Bottom Line
+
+Scout before review. Don't trust "simple changes" - scout them anyway.

package/skills/code-review/references/input-mode-resolution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+---
+name: input-mode-resolution
+description: How to parse code-review arguments and resolve PR number, commit hash, pending changes, or default context into a reviewable diff
+---
+
+# Input Mode Resolution
+
+Resolve `/code-review` arguments into a diff for the review pipeline.
+
+## Auto-Detection Rules
+
+Parse arguments left-to-right. First match wins.
+
+| Pattern | Mode | Example |
+|---------|------|---------|
+| `#\d+` | PR | `#123`, `#45` |
+| GitHub PR URL | PR | `https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123` |
+| `[0-9a-f]{7,40}` | Commit | `abc1234`, full SHA |
+| `--pending` | Pending | explicit flag |
+| `codebase` | Codebase | existing mode |
+| *(none + context)* | Default | recent changes |
+| *(none + no context)* | Prompt | ask user by asking the user |
+
+## Resolution Commands
+
+### PR Mode
+
+```bash
+# Extract PR number from argument
+PR_NUM=$(echo "$ARG" | grep -oE '[0-9]+$')
+
+# Fetch PR metadata
+gh pr view "$PR_NUM" --json title,body,files,additions,deletions,baseRefName,headRefName
+
+# Get the diff
+gh pr diff "$PR_NUM"
+
+# Get changed file list
+gh pr diff "$PR_NUM" --name-only
+```
+
+**Context passed to reviewers:**
+- PR title and description (intent)
+- Base branch (what it merges into)
+- Full diff
+- Changed file list for scout
+
+### Commit Mode
+
+```bash
+# Validate commit exists
+git cat-file -t "$COMMIT_HASH"
+
+# Get commit metadata
+git log -1 --format="%H%n%s%n%b" "$COMMIT_HASH"
+
+# Get the diff
+git show "$COMMIT_HASH" --stat
+git show "$COMMIT_HASH" -- # full diff
+
+# Changed files
+git show "$COMMIT_HASH" --name-only --format=""
+```
+
+**Context passed to reviewers:**
+- Commit message (intent)
+- Parent commit (what it changed from)
+- Full diff
+- Changed file list for scout
+
+### Pending Mode
+
+```bash
+# Staged changes
+git diff --cached
+
+# Unstaged changes
+git diff
+
+# Combined (staged + unstaged vs HEAD)
+git diff HEAD
+
+# Changed files
+git diff HEAD --name-only
+
+# Status overview
+git status --short
+```
+
+**Context passed to reviewers:**
+- No commit message yet — ask user for brief intent description
+- Combined diff (staged + unstaged)
+- Changed file list for scout
+
+### Default Mode
+
+Use recent changes already in conversation context. If no changes apparent, fall back to Prompt mode.
+
+### Prompt Mode
+
+When no arguments and no recent context, ask the user:
+- Header: "Review Target"
+- Question: "What would you like to review?"
+- Options: Pending changes, Enter PR number, Enter commit hash, Full codebase scan, Parallel codebase audit
+
+For PR/commit options, follow up with second asking the user to get the number/hash.
+
+### Codebase Mode
+
+Codebase modes bypass diff resolution — they scan the full codebase instead.
+- `codebase` → hand off to `references/codebase-scan-workflow.md`
+- `codebase parallel` → hand off to `references/parallel-review-workflow.md`
+
+Both workflows include adversarial review (always-on).
+
+## Pipeline Handoff
+
+After resolving the diff, pass to the review pipeline:
+
+```
+Resolved diff
+  ├─ Changed files → Edge case scout
+  ├─ Full diff → Stage 1 (Spec compliance, if plan exists)
+  ├─ Full diff → Stage 2 (Code quality review)
+  └─ Full diff + findings → Stage 3 (Adversarial review)
+```
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Error | Action |
+|-------|--------|
+| PR not found | `gh pr view` fails → report "PR #N not found in this repo" |
+| Commit not found | `git cat-file` fails → report "Commit not found — is it pushed?" |
+| No pending changes | `git diff HEAD` empty → report "No pending changes to review" |
+| Ambiguous input | Could be PR or commit → prefer PR (more common), note assumption |

package/skills/code-review/references/parallel-review-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Parallel Review Workflow
+
+**Ultrathink** to exhaustively list ALL potential edge cases, then dispatch parallel `code-reviewer` agents to verify: <scope>$ARGUMENTS</scope>
+
+**IMPORTANT:** Activate needed skills. Ensure token efficiency. Sacrifice grammar for concision.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Ultrathink Edge Cases
+
+Main agent deeply analyzes the scope to LIST all potential edge cases FIRST:
+- Read `codebase-summary.md` for context
+- Use `/ck-scout` to find relevant files
+- **Think exhaustively** about what could go wrong:
+  - Null/undefined scenarios
+  - Boundary conditions (off-by-one, empty, max values)
+  - Error handling gaps
+  - Race conditions, async edge cases
+  - Input validation holes
+  - Security vulnerabilities
+  - Resource leaks
+  - Untested code paths
+
+**Output format:**
+```markdown
+## Edge Cases Identified
+
+### Category: [scope-area]
+1. [edge case description] → files: [file1, file2]
+```
+
+### 2. Categorize & Assign
+
+Group edge cases by similar scope for parallel verification:
+- Each category → one `code-reviewer` agent
+- Max 6 categories (merge small ones)
+- Each reviewer gets specific edge cases to VERIFY, not discover
+
+### 3. Parallel Verification
+
+Launch N `code-reviewer` subagents simultaneously:
+- Pass: category name, list of edge cases, relevant files
+- Task: **VERIFY** if each edge case is properly handled in code
+- Report: which edge cases are handled vs unhandled
+
+### 4. Aggregate Results
+
+```markdown
+## Edge Case Verification Report
+
+### Summary
+- Total edge cases: X
+- Handled: Y
+- Unhandled: Z
+- Partial: W
+
+### Unhandled Edge Cases (Need Fix)
+| # | Edge Case | File | Status |
+|---|-----------|------|--------|
+```
+
+### 5. Adversarial Review (Always-On)
+
+After aggregation, spawn adversarial reviewer (see `adversarial-review.md`) on the full scope:
+- Adversarial reviewer receives aggregated findings + unhandled edge cases as context
+- Actively tries to break the code beyond what edge case verification found
+- Adjudicate findings: Accept / Reject / Defer
+
+### 6. Auto-Fix Pipeline
+
+**IF** unhandled/partial edge cases found:
+- Ask: "Found N unhandled edge cases. Fix with /ck-fix --parallel? [Y/n]"
+
+### 7. Final Report
+- Summary of verification
+- Ask: "Commit? [Y/n]" → use `git-manager`