create-agdf 0.1.3 → 0.1.5

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/agdf-qa-gate/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+---
+name: agdf-qa-gate
+description: Use this skill before any QA decision to determine whether implementation can be classified as pass, revise, or block based on TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, evidence, and open blockers. Use it after CD+Tests, after reviews, and before UAT or release decisions.
+---
+
+# qa-gate
+
+## Purpose
+Make the formal QA gate decision.
+
+This skill is the only final QA decision point for `pass | revise | block`.
+
+It answers:
+
+- whether `QA pass` is allowed
+- whether the implementation must be revised
+- whether a hard blocker remains
+- whether relevant TP tasks are sufficiently verified
+- whether P0/P1 tasks are complete
+- whether Brownfield fit is sufficient
+- whether solution integrity is sufficient
+- whether blockers, critical risks, or missing evidence remain
+
+## Runtime Contract
+Use `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md` for Quality Contract output, Context Graph fields, gate terms, and non-duplication rules.
+
+QA-specific `decision` is exactly `pass | revise | block`.
+`pass` is allowed only when TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, and relevant documentation/Context Graph impact are sufficiently evidenced.
+`sot_drift` must not pass silently as a warning.
+
+## Rules
+1. No QA pass without strong evidence.
+2. TP is the reference, not merely working code.
+3. P0/P1 gaps block `pass`.
+4. Brownfield fit is mandatory.
+5. UI surface integrity is mandatory for UI-impacting changes.
+6. Solution integrity is mandatory.
+7. Always output exactly one decision: `pass`, `revise`, or `block`.
+8. Open risks, missing tests, partial TP coverage, or side effects must be visible.
+
+## When To Use
+- after `CD+Tests`
+- after `agdf-code-review`
+- after `agdf-task-plan-review`
+- after `agdf-clean-implementation-review`
+- before UAT
+- before any claim that implementation is done, releasable, or QA-ready
+- when evidence from Brownfield, TP, or clean-review skills exists
+
+Important:
+
+- `CD+Tests` is implementation and test status only.
+- Without review evidence and TP coverage, `QA pass` is not allowed.
+
+## Inputs
+Use what is available:
+
+- approved TP and TP Review
+- Brownfield Analysis
+- Clean Implementation Review
+- `agdf-code-review` or Code Review Report
+- test/build results
+- documentation impact review
+- runtime or UI evidence
+- known blockers and risks
+
+If evidence is missing, lower the decision accordingly.
+
+## Workflow
+1. Confirm the relevant gate context.
+2. Verify TP coverage.
+3. Verify P0/P1 completion.
+4. Verify Brownfield fit.
+5. Verify solution integrity.
+6. Verify tests and evidence strength.
+7. Verify documentation and Context Graph impact if relevant.
+8. Decide:
+   - `pass`
+   - `revise`
+   - `block`
+9. State the single required next step.
+
+## Output
+Use this shape:
+
+```text
+## QA Gate
+- decision: pass | revise | block
+- evidence:
+- missing_evidence:
+- risks:
+- required_next_step:
+- impact_codes:
+```
+
+If Context Graph impact is relevant, include the fields from `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md`.
+
+## Decision Guidance
+- `pass`: required TP tasks are done, evidence is strong, no blocking Brownfield or solution-integrity risk remains.
+- `revise`: implementation is plausible but missing evidence, partial tasks, UX gaps, or fixable integrity issues remain.
+- `block`: hard prerequisite, approval, product semantics, security/compliance, SoT drift, or critical behaviour is unresolved.
+
+## Forbidden
+This skill must not:
+
+- grant QA pass from a green build alone
+- hide partial task completion
+- replace UAT
+- treat missing reviews as completed
+- downgrade SoT drift to harmless warning

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/agdf-qa-gate/help.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+## NAME
+
+`agdf-qa-gate` - QA gate
+
+## SYNOPSIS
+
+`/agdf-qa-gate` [`--help`|`-h`]
+
+## DESCRIPTION
+
+Makes the formal QA gate decision (`pass | revise | block`) based on TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, evidence, and open blockers.
+
+## EXAMPLES
+
+Trigger the skill:
+
+```text
+> /agdf-qa-gate
+```
+
+## SEE ALSO
+
+See the full SKILL.md for detailed workflow, output format, and decision logic.

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/agdf-release-or/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+---
+name: agdf-release-or
+description: Use this skill at the end of every relevant run to produce a compact, auditable Orchestration Report. It summarizes gate status, delivered and intentionally not delivered work, TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, open risks, and the next permissible step.
+---
+
+# release-or
+
+## Purpose
+Produce the Orchestration Report (OR) as the mandatory closeout for a relevant run.
+
+It reports:
+
+- current user gate
+- whether the run is `pass`, `revise`, `block`, or not yet QA-decided
+- what was delivered
+- what was intentionally not delivered
+- missing approvals
+- TP coverage status
+- Brownfield fit
+- solution integrity
+- documentation impact
+- Context Graph impact
+- open risks, blockers, retained fallbacks, and exit criteria
+- next permissible step
+- whether further quality follow-up is useful
+
+## Runtime Contract
+Use `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md` for Quality Contract output, Context Graph fields, gate terms, and non-duplication rules.
+
+OR-specific output must make gate status, delivered and intentionally not delivered content, missing approvals, missing evidence, risks, retained fallbacks, and the next permissible step visible.
+
+## Rules
+1. OR is always allowed and mandatory for relevant runs.
+2. OR is an audit report, not a blocking gate.
+3. Do not leak artefacts from blocked later gates.
+4. Use OR-lite when early gates block.
+5. Use OR-full only within the allowed scope.
+6. Report status, not marketing language.
+7. Name missing approvals, partial implementation, risks, fallbacks, Brownfield issues, and open defects.
+8. Retained fallbacks require visible exit criteria and cleanup path.
+9. End with the immediately permissible next step.
+10. `CD+Tests` is not completion.
+
+## When To Use
+- at the end of every relevant run
+- after artefact creation
+- when a gate blocks
+- after `CD+Tests`
+- after `agdf-code-review`
+- after QA
+- after UAT
+- whenever a compact audit closeout is needed
+
+## Inputs
+Use what is available:
+
+- current gate
+- existing approvals
+- artefacts created in this run
+- intentionally not delivered content
+- Task Plan
+- `agdf-task-plan-review`
+- `agdf-brownfield-analysis`
+- `agdf-clean-implementation-review`
+- `agdf-code-review`
+- QA Report
+- UAT Report
+- documentation impact review
+- Context Graph impact
+- known risks, defects, fallbacks, and open questions
+- test/build status and relevant metrics
+
+If information is missing, state the gap instead of guessing.
+
+## Workflow
+1. Determine the current gate and earliest blocker.
+2. Determine report depth:
+   - `OR-lite`: gate status, allowed/forbidden outputs, missing approval, next step
+   - `OR-full`: also delivered artefacts, TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, risks, fallbacks, QA/UAT status
+3. Record delivered vs intentionally not delivered content.
+4. Summarize TP coverage if a TP exists.
+5. Summarize Brownfield fit and solution integrity if reviewed.
+6. Summarize tests and verification.
+7. Summarize documentation and Context Graph impact if relevant.
+8. Name retained fallbacks and exit criteria.
+9. Set exactly one next permissible step.
+10. Set exactly one quality outlook.
+11. Add a commit-ready handoff only when code changes exist and the delivery state allows it.
+
+## Output
+Use a compact structure:
+
+```text
+## OR
+- gate:
+- status:
+- delivered:
+- intentionally_not_delivered:
+- evidence:
+- missing_evidence:
+- risks:
+- retained_fallbacks:
+- required_next_step:
+- quality_outlook:
+```
+
+When Context Graph impact is relevant, include the fields from `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md`.
+
+For code-changing closeouts that are commit-near, append:
+
+```text
+Commit title:
+Commit body:
+Migration/Rollout note:
+```
+
+## Forbidden
+This skill must not:
+
+- decide QA in place of `agdf-qa-gate`
+- call `CD+Tests` complete, QA-ready, or release-ready
+- hide missing approvals
+- provide later-gate content while an earlier gate blocks
+- execute commit, push, or PR actions

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/agdf-release-or/help.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+## NAME
+
+`agdf-release-or` - release OR
+
+## SYNOPSIS
+
+`/agdf-release-or` [`--help`|`-h`]
+
+## DESCRIPTION
+
+Creates the mandatory Orchestration Report (OR) for a run. Summarizes gate status, delivered artefacts, TP coverage, Brownfield fit, solution integrity, open points, and the next permissible step.
+
+## EXAMPLES
+
+Trigger the skill:
+
+```text
+> /agdf-release-or
+```
+
+## SEE ALSO
+
+See the full SKILL.md for detailed workflow, output format, and decision logic.

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/agdf-task-plan-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+---
+name: agdf-task-plan-review
+description: Use this skill after code changes and before QA to verify whether the approved Task Plan was actually fulfilled. It checks each task_id against implementation, acceptance criteria, tests, visible evidence, and deviations, and provides TP coverage for QA.
+---
+
+# task-plan-review
+
+## Purpose
+Verify whether implementation actually satisfies the approved Task Plan.
+
+For each relevant task, this skill determines:
+
+- whether the task is fully, partially, or not completed
+- which acceptance criteria are done, partial, missing, or not verifiable
+- which files, tests, runtime evidence, or UI evidence support the finding
+- evidence strength
+- which gaps must be handed to `agdf-qa-gate`
+
+This skill provides TP coverage. It is not the final QA decision.
+
+## Runtime Contract
+Use `../../meta/agdf-runtime-contract.md` for Quality Contract output, Context Graph fields, gate terms, and non-duplication rules.
+
+TP-specific output must evaluate every relevant `task_id` with completion status, AC coverage, evidence, missing evidence, and QA-relevant gaps.
+If `context_graph_required_action` is not `none`, the affected task is complete only if follow-up, evidence, or an intentionally open gap is visible.
+
+## Rules
+1. The Task Plan is the reference, not plausible code.
+2. No assumptions without evidence.
+3. Evaluate each relevant `task_id` individually.
+4. `fully_done` requires strong evidence.
+5. A green build alone does not prove TP completion.
+6. UI/state/render/recovery tasks need visible evidence, not only code.
+7. Partial implementation must be marked `partially_done`.
+8. P0/P1 gaps must be handed to QA.
+9. Out-of-scope changes must be reported.
+10. When evidence is unclear, fail closed to at least `partially_done`.
+
+## Clarifications
+### TP Slice Before Target State
+If the TP explicitly defines a preparatory, additive, or limited slice, evaluate that exact scope.
+`fully_done` is allowed for a completed slice even if the larger target state remains open.
+
+### Missing Priorities
+If no priorities are defined, do not invent them. Mark the gap and treat QA relevance conservatively.
+
+### Missing Acceptance Criteria
+If ACs are unclear, derive only obvious expectations from title, goal, and scope. Mark AC basis as incomplete and lower evidence confidence as needed.
+
+## When To Use
+- after `CD+Tests`
+- before `QA`
+- when TP completion is unclear
+- when the user asks for TP fulfilment
+- when UI/state/runtime invariants are affected
+- when several agents or work steps touched the same TP
+
+## Inputs
+Use what is available:
+
+- Task Plan
+- `task_id`, `story_id`, priorities
+- acceptance criteria or success goals
+- changed files
+- tests and test results
+- build results
+- runtime/UI evidence
+- known deviations and scope decisions
+
+If TP or relevant tasks are missing, do not claim reliable TP coverage.
+
+## Output
+Use this compact structure:
+
+```text
+## TP Coverage
+| task_id | status | evidence | missing_evidence | QA impact |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+
+## Summary
+- fully_done:
+- partially_done:
+- not_done:
+- out_of_scope_changes:
+- risks:
+- required_next_step:
+```
+
+Completion status:
+
+- `fully_done`
+- `partially_done`
+- `not_done`
+
+AC status:
+
+- `done`
+- `partial`
+- `missing`
+- `not_verifiable`
+
+Evidence confidence:
+
+- `high`
+- `medium`
+- `low`
+
+## Forbidden
+This skill must not:
+
+- decide final QA
+- mark tasks fully done from code existence alone
+- hide partial work
+- upgrade missing evidence into confidence
+- reinterpret the TP scope

package/generated/plugins/agdf/skills/agdf-task-plan-review/help.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+## NAME
+
+`agdf-task-plan-review` - task plan review
+
+## SYNOPSIS
+
+`/agdf-task-plan-review` [`--help`|`-h`]
+
+## DESCRIPTION
+
+Checks after code changes and before QA whether the approved Task Plan tasks were fully, partially, or not completed. Provides reliable TP coverage as input for the QA gate decision.
+
+## EXAMPLES
+
+Trigger the skill:
+
+```text
+> /agdf-task-plan-review
+```
+
+## SEE ALSO
+
+See the full SKILL.md for detailed workflow, output format, and decision logic.

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "create-agdf",
-  "version": "0.1.3",
-  "description": "Bootstrap AGDF repository instructions, skills and control templates for GitHub Copilot; AGDF also ships as Claude Code and Codex plugins.",
+  "version": "0.1.5",
+  "description": "Bootstrap AGDF repository-local Codex plugin marketplaces, Copilot instructions, skills and control templates.",
   "type": "module",
   "files": [
     "bin",