cokit-cli 1.2.7 → 1.4.0

package/skills/ck-chrome-devtools/scripts/ws-full-debug.js

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+import { getBrowser, getPage, disconnectBrowser, outputJSON } from './lib/browser.js';
+
+async function debugWsFull() {
+  const browser = await getBrowser({ headless: false });
+  const page = await getPage(browser);
+
+  const logs = [];
+  const wsEvents = [];
+  const networkErrors = [];
+
+  // Capture ALL console messages
+  page.on('console', msg => {
+    logs.push({
+      type: msg.type(),
+      text: msg.text(),
+      location: msg.location()
+    });
+  });
+
+  // Capture page errors
+  page.on('pageerror', err => {
+    logs.push({ type: 'pageerror', text: err.message });
+  });
+
+  // Monitor WebSocket via CDP
+  const client = await page.createCDPSession();
+  await client.send('Network.enable');
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketCreated', e => {
+    console.log('WS Created:', e.url);
+    wsEvents.push({ event: 'created', url: e.url, requestId: e.requestId });
+  });
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketWillSendHandshakeRequest', e => {
+    console.log('WS Handshake Request:', e.requestId);
+    wsEvents.push({ event: 'handshake_request', requestId: e.requestId, request: e.request });
+  });
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketHandshakeResponseReceived', e => {
+    console.log('WS Handshake Response:', e.response?.status);
+    wsEvents.push({
+      event: 'handshake_response',
+      requestId: e.requestId,
+      status: e.response?.status,
+      headers: e.response?.headers
+    });
+  });
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketClosed', e => {
+    console.log('WS Closed:', e.requestId);
+    wsEvents.push({ event: 'closed', requestId: e.requestId });
+  });
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketFrameError', e => {
+    console.log('WS Frame Error:', e.errorMessage);
+    wsEvents.push({ event: 'frame_error', requestId: e.requestId, error: e.errorMessage });
+  });
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketFrameReceived', e => {
+    wsEvents.push({ event: 'frame_received', requestId: e.requestId, data: e.response?.payloadData?.substring(0, 200) });
+  });
+
+  client.on('Network.webSocketFrameSent', e => {
+    wsEvents.push({ event: 'frame_sent', requestId: e.requestId, data: e.response?.payloadData?.substring(0, 200) });
+  });
+
+  // Track failed requests
+  client.on('Network.loadingFailed', e => {
+    if (e.type === 'WebSocket') {
+      networkErrors.push({ requestId: e.requestId, error: e.errorText, canceled: e.canceled });
+    }
+  });
+
+  console.log('Navigating to app...');
+  await page.goto('http://localhost:5173', { waitUntil: 'networkidle0', timeout: 20000 });
+
+  console.log('Current URL:', page.url());
+
+  // Wait longer and collect events
+  console.log('Waiting 10s to collect WebSocket events...');
+  await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 10000));
+
+  // Filter for /ws connections only (not vite-hmr)
+  const appWsEvents = wsEvents.filter(e => e.url?.includes('/ws') && !e.url?.includes('token='));
+
+  outputJSON({
+    success: true,
+    url: page.url(),
+    appWsEvents,
+    allWsEvents: wsEvents,
+    networkErrors,
+    logs: logs.filter(l =>
+      l.text?.toLowerCase().includes('websocket') ||
+      l.text?.toLowerCase().includes('unauthorized') ||
+      l.text?.toLowerCase().includes('error') ||
+      l.type === 'error'
+    ).slice(0, 20)
+  });
+
+  await disconnectBrowser();
+  process.exit(0);
+}
+
+debugWsFull().catch(e => {
+  console.error(JSON.stringify({ success: false, error: e.message, stack: e.stack }));
+  process.exit(1);
+});

package/skills/ck-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+---
+name: ck-code-review
+description: "Review code quality with adversarial rigor. Supports input modes: pending changes, PR number, commit hash, codebase scan. Always-on red-team analysis finds security holes, false assumptions, and failure modes."
+argument-hint: "[#PR | COMMIT | --pending | codebase [parallel]]"
+---
+
+# Code Review
+
+Adversarial code review with technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses. Every review includes red-team analysis that actively tries to break the code.
+
+## Input Modes
+
+Auto-detect from arguments. If ambiguous or no arguments, prompt by asking the user.
+
+| Input | Mode | What Gets Reviewed |
+|-------|------|--------------------|
+| `#123` or PR URL | **PR** | Full PR diff fetched via `gh pr diff` |
+| `abc1234` (7+ hex chars) | **Commit** | Single commit diff via `git show` |
+| `--pending` | **Pending** | Staged + unstaged changes via `git diff` |
+| *(no args, recent changes)* | **Default** | Recent changes in context |
+| `codebase` | **Codebase** | Full codebase scan |
+| `codebase parallel` | **Codebase+** | Parallel multi-reviewer audit |
+
+**Resolution details:** `references/input-mode-resolution.md`
+
+### No Arguments
+
+If invoked WITHOUT arguments and no recent changes in context, ask the user with header "Review Target", question "What would you like to review?":
+
+| Option | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| Pending changes | Review staged/unstaged git diff |
+| Enter PR number | Fetch and review a specific PR |
+| Enter commit hash | Review a specific commit |
+| Full codebase scan | Deep codebase analysis |
+| Parallel codebase audit | Multi-reviewer codebase scan |
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**YAGNI**, **KISS**, **DRY** always. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+**Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.**
+
+Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
+
+## Practices
+
+| Practice | When | Reference |
+|----------|------|-----------|
+| **Spec compliance** | After implementing from plan/spec, BEFORE quality review | `references/spec-compliance-review.md` |
+| **Adversarial review** | Always-on Stage 3 — actively tries to break the code | `references/adversarial-review.md` |
+| Receiving feedback | Unclear feedback, external reviewers, needs prioritization | `references/code-review-reception.md` |
+| Requesting review | After tasks, before merge, stuck on problem | `references/requesting-code-review.md` |
+| Verification gates | Before any completion claim, commit, PR | `references/verification-before-completion.md` |
+| Edge case scouting | After implementation, before review | `references/edge-case-scouting.md` |
+| **Checklist review** | Pre-landing, `/ck-ship` pipeline, security audit | `references/checklist-workflow.md` |
+| **Task-managed reviews** | Multi-file features (3+ files), parallel reviewers, fix cycles | `references/task-management-reviews.md` |
+
+## Quick Decision Tree
+
+```
+SITUATION?
+│
+├─ Input mode? → Resolve diff (references/input-mode-resolution.md)
+│   ├─ #PR / URL → fetch PR diff
+│   ├─ commit hash → git show
+│   ├─ --pending → git diff (staged + unstaged)
+│   ├─ codebase → full scan (references/codebase-scan-workflow.md)
+│   ├─ codebase parallel → parallel audit (references/parallel-review-workflow.md)
+│   └─ default → recent changes in context
+│
+├─ Received feedback → STOP if unclear, verify if external, implement if human partner
+├─ Completed work from plan/spec:
+│   ├─ Stage 1: Spec compliance review (references/spec-compliance-review.md)
+│   │   └─ PASS? → Stage 2 │ FAIL? → Fix → Re-review Stage 1
+│   ├─ Stage 2: Code quality review (code-reviewer subagent)
+│   │   └─ Scout edge cases → Review standards, performance
+│   └─ Stage 3: Adversarial review (references/adversarial-review.md) [ALWAYS-ON]
+│       └─ Red-team the code → Adjudicate → Accept/Reject findings
+├─ Completed work (no plan) → Scout → Code quality → Adversarial review
+├─ Pre-landing / ship → Load checklists → Two-pass review → Adversarial review
+├─ Multi-file feature (3+ files) → Create review pipeline tasks (scout→review→adversarial→fix→verify)
+└─ About to claim status → RUN verification command FIRST
+```
+
+### Three-Stage Review Protocol
+
+**Stage 1 — Spec Compliance** (load `references/spec-compliance-review.md`)
+- Does code match what was requested?
+- Any missing requirements? Any unjustified extras?
+- MUST pass before Stage 2
+
+**Stage 2 — Code Quality** (code-reviewer subagent)
+- Only runs AFTER spec compliance passes
+- Standards, security, performance, edge cases
+
+**Stage 3 — Adversarial Review** (load `references/adversarial-review.md`)
+- Runs AFTER Stage 2 passes, subject to scope gate (skip if <=2 files, <=30 lines, no security files)
+- Spawn adversarial reviewer with context anchoring (runtime, framework, context files)
+- Find: security holes, false assumptions, resource exhaustion, race conditions, supply chain, observability gaps
+- Output: Accept (must fix) / Reject (false positive) / Defer (GitHub issue) verdicts per finding
+- Critical findings block merge; re-reviews use fix-diff-only optimization
+
+## Receiving Feedback
+
+**Pattern:** READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT
+No performative agreement. Verify before implementing. Push back if wrong.
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/code-review-reception.md`
+
+## Requesting Review
+
+**When:** After each task, major features, before merge
+
+**Process:**
+1. **Scout edge cases first** (see below)
+2. Get SHAs: `BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)` and `HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)`
+3. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with: WHAT, PLAN, BASE_SHA, HEAD_SHA, DESCRIPTION
+4. Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/requesting-code-review.md`
+
+## Edge Case Scouting
+
+**When:** After implementation, before requesting code-reviewer
+
+**Process:**
+1. Invoke `/ck-scout` with edge-case-focused prompt
+2. Scout analyzes: affected files, data flows, error paths, boundary conditions
+3. Review scout findings for potential issues
+4. Address critical gaps before code review
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/edge-case-scouting.md`
+
+## Task-Managed Review Pipeline
+
+**When:** Multi-file features (3+ changed files), parallel code-reviewer scopes, review cycles with Critical fix iterations.
+
+**Fallback:** Task tools (`TaskCreate`/`TaskUpdate`/`TaskGet`/`TaskList`) are CLI-only — unavailable in VSCode extension. If they error, use `TodoWrite` for tracking and run pipeline sequentially. Review quality is identical.
+
+**Pipeline:** scout → review → adversarial → fix → verify (each a Task with dependency chain)
+
+```
+TaskCreate: "Scout edge cases"         → pending
+TaskCreate: "Review implementation"    → pending, blockedBy: [scout]
+TaskCreate: "Adversarial review"       → pending, blockedBy: [review]
+TaskCreate: "Fix critical issues"      → pending, blockedBy: [adversarial]
+TaskCreate: "Verify fixes pass"        → pending, blockedBy: [fix]
+```
+
+**Parallel reviews:** Spawn scoped code-reviewer subagents for independent file groups (e.g., backend + frontend). Fix task blocks on all reviewers completing.
+
+**Re-review cycles:** If fixes introduce new issues, create cycle-2 review task. Limit 3 cycles, escalate to user after.
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/task-management-reviews.md`
+
+## Verification Gates
+
+**Iron Law:** NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+
+**Gate:** IDENTIFY command → RUN full → READ output → VERIFY confirms → THEN claim
+
+**Requirements:**
+- Tests pass: Output shows 0 failures
+- Build succeeds: Exit 0
+- Bug fixed: Original symptom passes
+- Requirements met: Checklist verified
+
+**Red Flags:** "should"/"probably"/"seems to", satisfaction before verification, trusting agent reports
+
+**Full protocol:** `references/verification-before-completion.md`
+
+## Integration with Workflows
+
+- **Subagent-Driven:** Scout → Review → Adversarial → Verify before next task
+- **Pull Requests:** Scout → Code quality → Adversarial → Merge
+- **Task Pipeline:** Create review tasks with dependencies → auto-unblock through chain
+- **Cook Handoff:** Cook completes phase → review pipeline tasks (incl. adversarial) → all complete → cook proceeds
+- **PR Review:** `/code-review #123` → fetch diff → full 3-stage review on PR changes
+- **Commit Review:** `/code-review abc1234` → review specific commit with full pipeline
+
+## Codebase Analysis Subcommands
+
+| Subcommand | Reference | Purpose |
+|------------|-----------|---------|
+| `/ck-code-review codebase` | `references/codebase-scan-workflow.md` | Scan & analyze the codebase |
+| `/ck-code-review codebase parallel` | `references/parallel-review-workflow.md` | Ultrathink edge cases, then parallel verify |
+
+## Bottom Line
+
+1. Resolve input mode first — know WHAT you're reviewing
+2. Technical rigor over social performance
+3. Scout edge cases before review
+4. Adversarial review on EVERY review — no exceptions
+5. Evidence before claims
+
+Verify. Scout. Red-team. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.

package/skills/ck-code-review/references/adversarial-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+---
+name: adversarial-review
+description: Stage 3 red-team review that actively tries to break code — finds security holes, false assumptions, failure modes, race conditions. Spawns adversarial reviewer subagent with destructive mindset. Includes scope gate for trivial changes.
+---
+
+# Adversarial Review (Stage 3)
+
+Runs after every Stage 2 (Code Quality) pass. Subject to scope gate below.
+
+## Scope Gate
+
+Skip adversarial review when ALL of these are true:
+- Changed files <= 2
+- Lines changed <= 30
+- No security-sensitive files touched (auth, crypto, input parsing, SQL, env)
+- No new dependencies added
+
+When skipped, note: `Adversarial: skipped (below threshold)` in review output.
+
+**NEVER skip when:**
+- Any file in: `auth/`, `middleware/`, `security/`, `crypto/`
+- `package.json`, `package-lock.json`, or lockfile changed
+- Environment variables added/changed
+- Database schema modified
+- API route added/changed
+
+## Mindset
+
+> "You are hired to tear apart the implementer's work. Your job is to find every way this code can fail, be exploited, or produce incorrect results. Assume the implementer made mistakes. Prove it."
+
+This is NOT a standard code review. Standard reviews check if code meets requirements. Adversarial review assumes requirements are met and asks: **"How can this still break?"**
+
+## What to Attack
+
+### Security Holes
+- Injection vectors (SQL, command, XSS, template)
+- Auth bypass paths (missing checks, privilege escalation)
+- Secrets exposure (logs, error messages, stack traces)
+- Input trust boundaries (user input treated as safe)
+- SSRF, path traversal, deserialization attacks
+
+### False Assumptions
+- "This will never be null" -- prove it can be
+- "This list always has elements" -- find the empty case
+- "Users always call A before B" -- find the out-of-order path
+- "This config value exists" -- find the missing env var
+- "This third-party API always returns 200" -- find the failure mode
+- "This API shape won't change" -- find the breaking caller
+
+### Failure Modes & Resource Exhaustion
+- What happens when disk is full?
+- What happens when network times out mid-operation?
+- What happens when the database connection drops during a transaction?
+- Unbounded allocations from user-controlled input
+- Missing timeouts on external calls
+- Event loop blocking (sync operations in async context)
+- Connection/handle leaks on error paths
+- Regex catastrophic backtracking (ReDoS)
+
+### Race Conditions
+- Shared mutable state without locks
+- Time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU)
+- Async operations with implicit ordering assumptions
+- Cache invalidation during concurrent writes
+
+### Data Corruption
+- Partial writes on failure (no transaction/rollback)
+- Type coercion surprises (string "0" as falsy)
+- Floating point comparison for equality
+- Timezone-naive datetime operations
+
+### Supply Chain & Dependencies
+- New dependencies: postinstall scripts, maintainer reputation, bundle size
+- Lockfile changes: version drift, removed integrity hashes
+- Transitive deps pulling in known-vulnerable packages
+
+### Observability Blind Spots
+- Swallowed errors (`catch {}` with no log)
+- Missing structured context in error logs
+- PII in log output
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Spawn Adversarial Reviewer
+
+Dispatch `ck-code-reviewer` subagent with adversarial prompt:
+
+```
+You are an adversarial code reviewer. Your ONLY job is to find ways this code
+can fail, be exploited, or produce incorrect results.
+
+DO NOT praise the code. DO NOT note what works well.
+ONLY report problems. If you find nothing, say "No findings" -- but try harder first.
+
+Focus on ADDED/MODIFIED lines (+ prefix in diff). Pre-existing code is out of scope
+unless the change makes it newly exploitable.
+
+Context (read for understanding, DO NOT review):
+{CONTEXT_FILES}
+
+Runtime: {RUNTIME} (e.g., Node.js single-threaded, browser, serverless)
+Framework: {FRAMEWORK} (e.g., Express with global error handler at app.ts:45)
+
+Review this diff:
+{DIFF}
+
+Changed files: {FILES}
+
+Attack vectors to check:
+1. Security holes (injection, auth bypass, secrets exposure)
+2. False assumptions (null, empty, ordering, config, API contracts)
+3. Failure modes + resource exhaustion (timeouts, leaks, unbounded input)
+4. Race conditions (shared state, TOCTOU, async ordering)
+5. Data corruption (partial writes, type coercion, encoding)
+6. Supply chain (new deps, lockfile changes, transitive vulns)
+7. Observability (swallowed errors, missing logs, PII in output)
+
+For each finding, report:
+- SEVERITY: Critical / Medium / Low
+- CATEGORY: Security / Assumption / Failure / Race / Data / Supply / Observability
+- LOCATION: file:line
+- ATTACK: How to trigger the problem
+- IMPACT: What happens when triggered
+- FIX: Describe the fix approach (e.g., "add null check before line 42").
+  Do NOT write implementation code -- the implementer has full context.
+```
+
+**If adversarial produces >10 findings on <100 lines changed:** likely too aggressive. Batch-reject noise, deep-review only Critical/Medium.
+
+### 2. Adjudicate Findings
+
+Main agent reviews each adversarial finding and assigns verdict:
+
+| Verdict | Meaning | Action |
+|---------|---------|--------|
+| **Accept** | Valid flaw, reproducible or clearly reasoned | Must fix before merge |
+| **Reject** | False positive, already handled, or impossible path | Document why, no action |
+| **Defer** | Valid but low-risk, tracked for later | Create GitHub issue for tracking |
+
+**Rules:**
+- Every finding gets a verdict -- no silent dismissals
+- Critical findings: Accept unless you can PROVE false positive
+- Benefit of doubt goes to the adversary (safer to fix than to dismiss)
+- If >50% of findings are Rejected, the adversary was too aggressive -- but still report all
+
+**Calibration examples:**
+
+| Verdict | Example | Reasoning |
+|---------|---------|-----------|
+| Accept | "SQL injection via string interpolation in query builder" | Clearly exploitable, concrete path shown |
+| Reject | "Missing null check on config.apiUrl" | Config loaded at startup with schema validation (see config.ts:12), cannot be null at runtime |
+| Defer | "No rate limiting on POST /api/upload" | Valid concern but internal-only tool currently; track for public exposure |
+
+### 3. Report Format
+
+```
+## Adversarial Review -- Stage 3
+
+### Summary
+- Findings: N total (X Critical, Y Medium, Z Low)
+- Accepted: A (must fix)
+- Rejected: B (false positive)
+- Deferred: C (tracked via GitHub issues)
+
+### Accepted Findings (Must Fix)
+
+#### [1] SEVERITY -- CATEGORY -- file:line
+**Attack:** How to trigger
+**Impact:** What happens
+**Fix:** Approach description
+**Verdict:** Accept -- [reason]
+
+### Rejected Findings
+
+#### [N] SEVERITY -- CATEGORY -- file:line
+**Attack:** Claimed vector
+**Verdict:** Reject -- [reason this is a false positive]
+
+### Deferred Findings
+
+#### [N] SEVERITY -- CATEGORY -- file:line
+**Attack:** How to trigger
+**Verdict:** Defer -- [reason] → GitHub issue #X
+```
+
+### 4. Fix Accepted Findings
+
+- Critical: Block merge. Fix immediately via `/fix` or manual edit.
+- Medium: Fix before merge if feasible. Defer only with explicit user approval.
+- Low: Track. Fix in follow-up if pattern repeats.
+
+### Re-review Optimization
+
+On fix cycles (re-running after accepted findings were fixed):
+- Only pass the FIX diff to adversarial, not the full original diff
+- Verify accepted findings are resolved
+- Check for regression: did the fix introduce new issues?
+
+## Integration with Pipeline
+
+```
+Stage 1 (Spec) → PASS
+  ↓
+Stage 2 (Quality) → PASS
+  ↓
+Scope gate → below threshold? → skip (note in report)
+  ↓ (above threshold)
+Stage 3 (Adversarial) → findings
+  ├─ 0 Accepted → PASS → proceed
+  ├─ Accepted Critical → BLOCK → fix → re-run Stage 3 (fix diff only)
+  └─ Accepted Medium/Low only → fix or defer → proceed
+```
+
+**Task pipeline update:** When using task-managed reviews, adversarial review gets its own task between "Review implementation" and "Fix critical issues".
+
+## What This Is NOT
+
+- NOT a style review (Stage 2 handles that)
+- NOT a spec compliance check (Stage 1 handles that)
+- NOT dependency graph analysis or import tracing (scout handles that)
+- NOT a general "suggestions for improvement" pass
+
+This is a focused, hostile attempt to break the code. If the code survives, it's ready to ship.

package/skills/ck-code-review/references/checklist-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+# Checklist-Based Review Workflow
+
+How to apply structured review checklists during code review.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Pre-landing review (from `/ck-ship` pipeline)
+- Explicit request for checklist review
+- Security audit before release
+- Code-reviewer agent when reviewing significant changes (10+ files or security-sensitive)
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Auto-Detect Project Type
+
+```bash
+# Check for web app frameworks
+if grep -qE '"(react|vue|svelte|next|nuxt|angular)"' package.json 2>/dev/null; then
+  echo "web-app"
+# Check for API patterns
+elif ls src/routes/ src/api/ src/controllers/ app/controllers/ 2>/dev/null | head -1; then
+  echo "api"
+else
+  echo "base-only"
+fi
+```
+
+### 2. Load Checklists
+
+Always load: `checklists/base.md`
+
+Overlay based on detection:
+- `web-app` → also load `checklists/web-app.md`
+- `api` → also load `checklists/api.md`
+- Both detected → load both overlays
+
+### 3. Get the Diff
+
+```bash
+git fetch origin main --quiet
+git diff origin/main
+```
+
+**CRITICAL:** Read the FULL diff before flagging anything. Checklist suppressions require full context.
+
+### 4. Two-Pass Review
+
+**Pass 1 (CRITICAL) — Run first:**
+- Scan diff against ALL critical categories (base + overlays)
+- Each finding must include: `[file:line]`, problem, fix
+- These block `/ship` pipeline
+
+**Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL) — Run second:**
+- Scan diff against ALL informational categories (base + overlays)
+- Same format: `[file:line]`, problem, fix
+- Included in PR body but don't block
+
+### 5. Check Suppressions
+
+Before reporting any finding, verify it's NOT in the suppressions list (bottom of `base.md`).
+
+Key suppressions:
+- Already addressed in the diff
+- Readability-aiding redundancy
+- Style/formatting issues
+- "Consider using X" when Y works fine
+
+### 6. Output
+
+```
+Pre-Landing Review: N issues (X critical, Y informational)
+
+**CRITICAL** (blocking):
+- [src/auth/login.ts:42] SQL injection via string interpolation in user lookup
+  Fix: Use parameterized query: `db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = $1', [email])`
+
+**Issues** (non-blocking):
+- [src/api/users.ts:88] Magic number 30 for pagination limit
+  Fix: Extract to constant `DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE = 30`
+```
+
+### 7. Critical Issue Resolution
+
+For each critical issue, ask the user:
+- Problem with `file:line`
+- Recommended fix
+- Options:
+  - A) Fix now (recommended)
+  - B) Acknowledge and proceed
+  - C) False positive — skip
+
+If user chose A (fix): apply fixes, commit, then re-run tests before continuing.
+
+## Integration with /ck-ship
+
+The ship pipeline calls this workflow at Step 4. Critical findings block the pipeline. Informational findings are included in the PR body.
+
+## Integration with /ck-code-review
+
+When invoked as part of standard code review, the checklist augments (not replaces) the existing scout → review → fix → verify pipeline. Checklist findings are merged with code-reviewer's own findings.

package/skills/ck-code-review/references/checklists/api.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# API Review Checklist (Overlay)
+
+Additive to `base.md`. Apply when project exposes REST/GraphQL/gRPC APIs.
+
+## Detection
+
+Apply this overlay when any of these are true:
+- Project has route definitions (Express, FastAPI, NestJS, Django, Rails, Go chi/gin)
+- OpenAPI/Swagger spec file exists
+- `src/routes/`, `src/api/`, `src/controllers/` directories
+- GraphQL schema files in the diff
+
+---
+
+## Pass 1 — CRITICAL (additions to base)
+
+### Auth & Rate Limiting
+- Public endpoints missing rate limiting (login, registration, password reset)
+- API keys or tokens exposed in URL query parameters (use headers)
+- Missing auth middleware on new routes
+- Batch/bulk endpoints without per-item authorization checks
+
+### Input Validation
+- Request body accepted without schema validation (missing Zod, Joi, Pydantic, etc.)
+- Mass assignment: entire request body spread into database model
+- File upload without size/type restrictions
+- Array inputs without length limits (DoS via large payloads)
+
+### Data Exposure
+- Sensitive fields in API responses (password hashes, internal IDs, tokens)
+- Stack traces or internal error details in production error responses
+- Verbose error messages that leak schema/implementation details
+
+---
+
+## Pass 2 — INFORMATIONAL (additions to base)
+
+### API Design
+- List endpoints without pagination (LIMIT/OFFSET or cursor-based)
+- Missing consistent error response format across endpoints
+- Inconsistent naming conventions (camelCase vs snake_case in same API)
+- Missing request/response content-type headers
+
+### Observability
+- New endpoints without logging/metrics
+- Error paths that swallow exceptions silently
+- Missing correlation/request IDs for tracing
+
+### Versioning & Compatibility
+- Breaking changes to existing response shapes without version bump
+- Removed fields without deprecation notice
+- Changed field types (string → number) in existing responses