cowork-flow 0.0.1

package/template/.superpowers/writing-skills/render-graphs.js

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+/**
+ * Render graphviz diagrams from a skill's SKILL.md to SVG files.
+ *
+ * Usage:
+ *   ./render-graphs.js <skill-directory>           # Render each diagram separately
+ *   ./render-graphs.js <skill-directory> --combine # Combine all into one diagram
+ *
+ * Extracts all ```dot blocks from SKILL.md and renders to SVG.
+ * Useful for helping your human partner visualize the process flows.
+ *
+ * Requires: graphviz (dot) installed on system
+ */
+
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+const { execSync } = require('child_process');
+
+function extractDotBlocks(markdown) {
+  const blocks = [];
+  const regex = /```dot\n([\s\S]*?)```/g;
+  let match;
+
+  while ((match = regex.exec(markdown)) !== null) {
+    const content = match[1].trim();
+
+    // Extract digraph name
+    const nameMatch = content.match(/digraph\s+(\w+)/);
+    const name = nameMatch ? nameMatch[1] : `graph_${blocks.length + 1}`;
+
+    blocks.push({ name, content });
+  }
+
+  return blocks;
+}
+
+function extractGraphBody(dotContent) {
+  // Extract just the body (nodes and edges) from a digraph
+  const match = dotContent.match(/digraph\s+\w+\s*\{([\s\S]*)\}/);
+  if (!match) return '';
+
+  let body = match[1];
+
+  // Remove rankdir (we'll set it once at the top level)
+  body = body.replace(/^\s*rankdir\s*=\s*\w+\s*;?\s*$/gm, '');
+
+  return body.trim();
+}
+
+function combineGraphs(blocks, skillName) {
+  const bodies = blocks.map((block, i) => {
+    const body = extractGraphBody(block.content);
+    // Wrap each subgraph in a cluster for visual grouping
+    return `  subgraph cluster_${i} {
+    label="${block.name}";
+    ${body.split('\n').map(line => '  ' + line).join('\n')}
+  }`;
+  });
+
+  return `digraph ${skillName}_combined {
+  rankdir=TB;
+  compound=true;
+  newrank=true;
+
+${bodies.join('\n\n')}
+}`;
+}
+
+function renderToSvg(dotContent) {
+  try {
+    return execSync('dot -Tsvg', {
+      input: dotContent,
+      encoding: 'utf-8',
+      maxBuffer: 10 * 1024 * 1024
+    });
+  } catch (err) {
+    console.error('Error running dot:', err.message);
+    if (err.stderr) console.error(err.stderr.toString());
+    return null;
+  }
+}
+
+function main() {
+  const args = process.argv.slice(2);
+  const combine = args.includes('--combine');
+  const skillDirArg = args.find(a => !a.startsWith('--'));
+
+  if (!skillDirArg) {
+    console.error('Usage: render-graphs.js <skill-directory> [--combine]');
+    console.error('');
+    console.error('Options:');
+    console.error('  --combine    Combine all diagrams into one SVG');
+    console.error('');
+    console.error('Example:');
+    console.error('  ./render-graphs.js ../subagent-driven-development');
+    console.error('  ./render-graphs.js ../subagent-driven-development --combine');
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  const skillDir = path.resolve(skillDirArg);
+  const skillFile = path.join(skillDir, 'SKILL.md');
+  const skillName = path.basename(skillDir).replace(/-/g, '_');
+
+  if (!fs.existsSync(skillFile)) {
+    console.error(`Error: ${skillFile} not found`);
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  // Check if dot is available
+  try {
+    execSync('which dot', { encoding: 'utf-8' });
+  } catch {
+    console.error('Error: graphviz (dot) not found. Install with:');
+    console.error('  brew install graphviz    # macOS');
+    console.error('  apt install graphviz     # Linux');
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  const markdown = fs.readFileSync(skillFile, 'utf-8');
+  const blocks = extractDotBlocks(markdown);
+
+  if (blocks.length === 0) {
+    console.log('No ```dot blocks found in', skillFile);
+    process.exit(0);
+  }
+
+  console.log(`Found ${blocks.length} diagram(s) in ${path.basename(skillDir)}/SKILL.md`);
+
+  const outputDir = path.join(skillDir, 'diagrams');
+  if (!fs.existsSync(outputDir)) {
+    fs.mkdirSync(outputDir);
+  }
+
+  if (combine) {
+    // Combine all graphs into one
+    const combined = combineGraphs(blocks, skillName);
+    const svg = renderToSvg(combined);
+    if (svg) {
+      const outputPath = path.join(outputDir, `${skillName}_combined.svg`);
+      fs.writeFileSync(outputPath, svg);
+      console.log(`  Rendered: ${skillName}_combined.svg`);
+
+      // Also write the dot source for debugging
+      const dotPath = path.join(outputDir, `${skillName}_combined.dot`);
+      fs.writeFileSync(dotPath, combined);
+      console.log(`  Source: ${skillName}_combined.dot`);
+    } else {
+      console.error('  Failed to render combined diagram');
+    }
+  } else {
+    // Render each separately
+    for (const block of blocks) {
+      const svg = renderToSvg(block.content);
+      if (svg) {
+        const outputPath = path.join(outputDir, `${block.name}.svg`);
+        fs.writeFileSync(outputPath, svg);
+        console.log(`  Rendered: ${block.name}.svg`);
+      } else {
+        console.error(`  Failed: ${block.name}`);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  console.log(`\nOutput: ${outputDir}/`);
+}
+
+main();

package/template/.superpowers/writing-skills/testing-skills-with-subagents.md

@@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
+# Testing Skills With Subagents
+
+**Load this reference when:** creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization.
+
+## Overview
+
+**Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation.**
+
+You run scenarios without the skill (RED - watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN - watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR - stay compliant).
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures.
+
+**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill-specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables).
+
+**Complete worked example:** See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Test skills that:
+- Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements)
+- Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework)
+- Could be rationalized away ("just this once")
+- Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality)
+
+Don't test:
+- Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides)
+- Skills without rules to violate
+- Skills agents have no incentive to bypass
+
+## TDD Mapping for Skill Testing
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do |
+|-----------|---------------|-------------|
+| **RED** | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Pressure test | Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance |
+| **REFACTOR** | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Test again, ensure still compliant |
+
+Same cycle as code TDD, different test format.
+
+## RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail)
+
+**Goal:** Run test WITHOUT the skill - watch agent fail, document exact failures.
+
+This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" - you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
+
+**Process:**
+
+- [ ] **Create pressure scenarios** (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] **Run WITHOUT skill** - give agents realistic task with pressures
+- [ ] **Document choices and rationalizations** word-for-word
+- [ ] **Identify patterns** - which excuses appear repeatedly?
+- [ ] **Note effective pressures** - which scenarios trigger violations?
+
+**Example:**
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You spent 4 hours implementing a feature. It's working perfectly.
+You manually tested all edge cases. It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm.
+Code review tomorrow at 9am. You just realized you didn't write tests.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete code, start over with TDD tomorrow
+B) Commit now, write tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min delay)
+
+Choose A, B, or C.
+```
+
+Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes:
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve same goals"
+- "Deleting is wasteful"
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+**NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.**
+
+## GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass)
+
+Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases - write just enough to address the actual failures you observed.
+
+Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
+
+If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re-test.
+
+## VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing
+
+**Goal:** Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.
+
+**Method:** Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures.
+
+### Writing Pressure Scenarios
+
+**Bad scenario (no pressure):**
+```markdown
+You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?
+```
+Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.
+
+**Good scenario (single pressure):**
+```markdown
+Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
+fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?
+```
+Time pressure + authority + consequences.
+
+**Great scenario (multiple pressures):**
+```markdown
+You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
+It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
+Just realized you forgot TDD.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
+B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit
+
+Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.
+```
+
+Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences.
+Forces explicit choice.
+
+### Pressure Types
+
+| Pressure | Example |
+|----------|---------|
+| **Time** | Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing |
+| **Sunk cost** | Hours of work, "waste" to delete |
+| **Authority** | Senior says skip it, manager overrides |
+| **Economic** | Job, promotion, company survival at stake |
+| **Exhaustion** | End of day, already tired, want to go home |
+| **Social** | Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible |
+| **Pragmatic** | "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" |
+
+**Best tests combine 3+ pressures.**
+
+**Why this works:** See persuasion-principles.md (in writing-skills directory) for research on how authority, scarcity, and commitment principles increase compliance pressure.
+
+### Key Elements of Good Scenarios
+
+1. **Concrete options** - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
+2. **Real constraints** - Specific times, actual consequences
+3. **Real file paths** - `/tmp/payment-system` not "a project"
+4. **Make agent act** - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
+5. **No easy outs** - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing
+
+### Testing Setup
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
+Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
+
+You have access to: [skill-being-tested]
+```
+
+Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.
+
+## REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green)
+
+Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression - you need to refactor the skill to prevent it.
+
+**Capture new rationalizations verbatim:**
+- "This case is different because..."
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+- "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently"
+- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
+- "Deleting X hours is wasteful"
+- "Keep as reference while writing tests first"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+
+**Document every excuse.** These become your rationalization table.
+
+### Plugging Each Hole
+
+For each new rationalization, add:
+
+### 1. Explicit Negation in Rules
+
+<Before>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Before>
+
+<After>
+```markdown
+Write code before 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
+```
+</After>
+
+### 2. Entry in Rationalization Table
+
+```markdown
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+```
+
+### 3. Red Flag Entry
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+```
+
+### 4. Update description
+
+```yaml
+description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.
+```
+
+Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.
+
+### Re-verify After Refactoring
+
+**Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.**
+
+Agent should now:
+- Choose correct option
+- Cite new sections
+- Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed
+
+**If agent finds NEW rationalization:** Continue REFACTOR cycle.
+
+**If agent follows rule:** Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.
+
+## Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)
+
+**After agent chooses wrong option, ask:**
+
+```markdown
+your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.
+
+How could that skill have been written differently to make
+it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?
+```
+
+**Three possible responses:**
+
+1. **"The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"**
+   - Not documentation problem
+   - Need stronger foundational principle
+   - Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+
+2. **"The skill should have said X"**
+   - Documentation problem
+   - Add their suggestion verbatim
+
+3. **"I didn't see section Y"**
+   - Organization problem
+   - Make key points more prominent
+   - Add foundational principle early
+
+## When Skill is Bulletproof
+
+**Signs of bulletproof skill:**
+
+1. **Agent chooses correct option** under maximum pressure
+2. **Agent cites skill sections** as justification
+3. **Agent acknowledges temptation** but follows rule anyway
+4. **Meta-testing reveals** "skill was clear, I should follow it"
+
+**Not bulletproof if:**
+- Agent finds new rationalizations
+- Agent argues skill is wrong
+- Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
+- Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation
+
+## Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing
+
+### Initial Test (Failed)
+```markdown
+Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
+Agent chose: C (write tests after)
+Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"
+```
+
+### Iteration 1 - Add Counter
+```markdown
+Added section: "Why Order Matters"
+Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
+New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"
+```
+
+### Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle
+```markdown
+Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
+Cited: New principle directly
+Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"
+```
+
+**Bulletproof achieved.**
+
+## Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills)
+
+Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:
+
+**RED Phase:**
+- [ ] Created pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITHOUT skill (baseline)
+- [ ] Documented agent failures and rationalizations verbatim
+
+**GREEN Phase:**
+- [ ] Wrote skill addressing specific baseline failures
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITH skill
+- [ ] Agent now complies
+
+**REFACTOR Phase:**
+- [ ] Identified NEW rationalizations from testing
+- [ ] Added explicit counters for each loophole
+- [ ] Updated rationalization table
+- [ ] Updated red flags list
+- [ ] Updated description with violation symptoms
+- [ ] Re-tested - agent still complies
+- [ ] Meta-tested to verify clarity
+- [ ] Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
+
+## Common Mistakes (Same as TDD)
+
+**❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED)**
+Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing.
+✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first.
+
+**❌ Not watching test fail properly**
+Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios.
+✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate.
+
+**❌ Weak test cases (single pressure)**
+Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple.
+✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion).
+
+**❌ Not capturing exact failures**
+"Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent.
+✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim.
+
+**❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters)**
+"Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does.
+✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization.
+
+**❌ Stopping after first pass**
+Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof.
+✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations.
+
+## Quick Reference (TDD Cycle)
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | Success Criteria |
+|-----------|---------------|------------------|
+| **RED** | Run scenario without skill | Agent fails, document rationalizations |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture exact wording | Verbatim documentation of failures |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill addressing failures | Agent now complies with skill |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Re-test scenarios | Agent follows rule under pressure |
+| **REFACTOR** | Close loopholes | Add counters for new rationalizations |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Agent still complies after refactoring |
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits.**
+
+If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents.
+
+RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for code.
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025-10-03):
+- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
+- Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations
+- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
+- Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
+- Same process works for any discipline-enforcing skill

package/template/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# 协作约定
+
+请与项目自身规范合并使用；如有冲突，以项目规范和用户明确指令为准。
+
+## 0. 项目定制位
+
+- 项目名称：`<按项目填写>`
+- 主要技术栈：`<按项目填写>`
+- 主要运行命令：`<按项目填写>`
+- 主要测试命令：`<按项目填写>`
+- 提交策略：`<由人类提交 / 允许 AI 提交 / 混合>`
+- 文档语言：默认 `中文`，如需英文请整体改口径
+---
+
+## 1. 编码前先思考
+
+**不要想当然，不要掩饰困惑，要把假设和取舍摆到台面上。**
+
+- 先明确写出自己的假设；不确定时就提问。
+- 如果需求存在多种解释，先把几种理解列出来，不要静默替用户做决定。
+- 如果存在更简单的做法，要主动指出。
+- 需要时可以温和地提出异议，不盲从执行。
+- 一旦发现信息不清、边界模糊或描述矛盾，先停下来，说明困惑点并澄清。
+
+## 2. 简单优先
+
+**用最少的代码解决问题，不做投机式设计。**
+
+- 不添加用户没有要求的功能。
+- 不为一次性代码提前做抽象。
+- 不加入未被要求的“灵活性”“可配置化”“通用化”。
+- 不为明显不可能发生的场景堆砌错误处理。
+- 如果写了很多代码，但更少代码能清楚解决问题，就应继续简化。
+
+## 3. 外科手术式改动
+
+**只改必须改的地方，只清理由自己改动带来的问题。**
+
+- 不顺手重构无关模块。
+- 不为“顺便优化”扩大改动面。
+- 尽量贴合项目现有结构、命名和风格。
+- 只删除因为本次修改而成为孤儿的代码。
+
+## 4. 以目标驱动执行
+
+**先定义成功标准，再循环验证直到目标达成。**
+
+把任务改写成可验证目标：
+
+- “修 bug” -> “先复现，再补回归验证，再修复”
+- “加能力” -> “先明确输入输出，再实现，再验证”
+- “重构” -> “先确认行为基线，再保证改前改后一致”
+
+多步骤任务建议使用：
+
+```text
+1. [步骤] -> 验证：[检查项]
+2. [步骤] -> 验证：[检查项]
+3. [步骤] -> 验证：[检查项]
+```
+## 5. 先读再写
+
+- 修改前先理解相关上下文。
+- 阅读导出、直接调用方和共享工具。
+- 不因为代码“看起来无关”就跳过检查。
+- 如果不理解现有结构原因，先澄清或保守处理。
+
+## 6. 遵守项目惯例
+
+- 项目一致性高于个人偏好。
+- 匹配现有代码风格、命名和组织方式。
+- 不静默引入另一套风格。
+- 如果认为现有惯例有害，要明确说明，而不是私自分叉。
+
+## 7. 暴露冲突
+   
+- 如果发现两种模式、约定或需求互相矛盾，不要折中混合。
+- 选择更近期、更稳定或测试覆盖更好的模式。
+- 简要说明选择原因。
+- 标记另一个冲突点，必要时建议后续清理。
+
+## 8. 测试验证意图
+
+- 测试应表达行为背后的业务意图，而不只是覆盖表面输出。
+- 新增或修改测试时，确保它能在关键逻辑被破坏时失败。
+- 修 bug 时，优先补回归验证。
+- 不把“测试未运行”说成“测试通过”。
+
+## 9. 阶段性检查
+
+- 每完成一个重要步骤，确认当前状态。
+    - 已完成什么。
+    - 已验证什么。
+    - 还剩什么。
+    - 如果跟丢上下文，先停下来重新整理。
+
+<!-- COWORK-FLOW:START -->
+# cowork-flow Instructions
+
+These instructions are for AI assistants working in this project.
+
+Use the `.agent/skills/start` skill when starting a new session to:
+- Initialize your developer identity
+- Understand current project context
+- Read relevant guidelines
+
+Use `@/.cowork-flow/` to learn:
+- Development workflow (`workflow.md`)
+- Project structure guidelines (`spec/`)
+- Developer workspace (`workspace/`)
+
+Use `@/.agent/skills/` for reusable local skills.
+
+Keep this managed block so cowork-flow updates can refresh the instructions.
+
+<!-- COWORK-FLOW:END -->