create-yss-spec 2.1.10 → 2.1.13

package/template/.cursor/skills/ask-matt/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Ask Matt"
+  short_description: "Find the right skill or workflow"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/template/.cursor/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+---
+name: code-review
+description: Use when the user wants to review a branch, PR, committed candidate, uncommitted work-in-progress changes, or changes since a fixed point.
+---
+
+Review of a pinned candidate against a fixed point on two core axes, plus UI fidelity when UI is in scope:
+
+- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
+- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
+- **UI fidelity** (only when the change has UI impact) — does the candidate match the confirmed prototype and `yss-design-system` / `yss-ui`? Type-check or claiming "already aligned" is not a pass. Invoke those skills' verification notes; do not collapse this axis into Standards or Spec.
+
+Standards and Spec run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. When UI is in scope, add a separate UI fidelity pass after those two reports (do not merge it into either axis).
+
+If `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`; do not invoke another user-invoked skill yourself.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Pin the fixed point and candidate
+
+Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
+
+Choose one candidate mode from the request or an upstream review contract:
+
+- **Committed candidate** — review committed branch/PR state. Capture `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` and `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.
+- **Worktree candidate** — review work in progress without requiring a commit. Resolve `<merge-base>` with `git merge-base <fixed-point> HEAD`, then capture:
+  - `git diff --no-ext-diff --binary --full-index <merge-base>` for committed, staged and unstaged tracked content as it exists in the working tree;
+  - `git ls-files -z --others --exclude-standard` for NUL-delimited raw untracked paths;
+  - each untracked file's content, using `git diff --no-index --no-ext-diff --binary --full-index -- /dev/null <path>` when a diff representation is useful. Exit code `1` from this command means a difference was found, not that review failed;
+  - `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline` for the committed portion of the candidate.
+
+Record one **candidate manifest** before spawning reviewers:
+
+```yaml
+review_mode: committed # or worktree
+review_base_ref: <fixed-point>
+merge_base: <resolved-sha>
+implementation_candidate_ref: HEAD # or working-tree
+candidate_snapshot_ref: <immutable-commit-or-captured-snapshot>
+candidate_digest: <sha256-or-immutable-tree-id>
+tracked_diff_command: <command>
+untracked_inventory_command: <command-or-null>
+untracked_files: []
+commit_list_command: <command>
+```
+
+For a Committed candidate, resolve `HEAD` to an immutable commit and tree before review. Its manifest must include `merge_base`, `tracked_diff_command` and `commit_list_command`. For a Worktree candidate, the manifest must additionally include `untracked_inventory_command`, `untracked_diff_command` and the exact `untracked_files` inventory.
+
+For a Worktree candidate, capture the tracked binary diff and every untracked file's bytes once into an immutable snapshot, compute `candidate_digest`, and make that **captured candidate** available to both reviewers. The following is normative, not illustrative: use the `yss-worktree-candidate-v1` byte stream. Start with ASCII `YSS-WORKTREE-CANDIDATE-V1` followed by one NUL byte. Append one tracked record: byte `0x54`, unsigned 64-bit big-endian binary-diff byte length, then the exact stdout bytes from `git diff --no-ext-diff --binary --full-index <merge-base>`. Then append one untracked record for each NUL-delimited raw path from `git ls-files -z --others --exclude-standard`, sorted bytewise by the raw path: byte `0x55`, unsigned 64-bit big-endian path length, raw path bytes, unsigned 32-bit big-endian `lstat` mode, entry-kind byte (`0x52` regular or `0x4c` symlink), unsigned 64-bit big-endian content length, then raw regular-file bytes or raw symlink-target bytes. Other entry kinds block capture. This is the sole length-prefixed framing and bytewise path order for the digest. SHA-256 is calculated over exactly this stream. The immutable snapshot stores `candidate-manifest.yaml`, `tracked.diff` and the `untracked/` bytes under the digest identity; both reviewers must consume those captured bytes and must not independently reread a live worktree.
+
+Before going further, confirm the fixed point and merge-base resolve. A committed candidate must have a non-empty committed diff. A Worktree candidate is non-empty when either its tracked diff or untracked inventory is non-empty. A bad ref, missing candidate part or empty candidate should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents. Do not silently downgrade Worktree review to `HEAD`-only review.
+
+### 2. Identify the spec source
+
+Look for the originating spec, in this order:
+
+1. A spec/Ticket/contract reference supplied by the user or an upstream lifecycle review input.
+2. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
+3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `docs/.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
+4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
+
+### 3. Identify the standards sources
+
+Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
+
+On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
+
+- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
+- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
+
+Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:
+
+- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
+- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
+- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
+- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
+- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
+- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
+- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
+- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
+- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
+- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
+- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
+- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
+
+### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
+
+**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:
+
+- The full candidate manifest, captured candidate, `candidate_digest`, diff/inventory commands and commit list. For Worktree candidates, explicitly include every untracked file.
+- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
+- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
+
+**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:
+
+- The same candidate manifest, captured candidate, `candidate_digest`, diff/inventory commands and commit list.
+- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
+- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."
+
+If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
+
+### 5. Aggregate
+
+Present the reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. If UI is in scope, add `## UI fidelity` from the separate pass. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the axes are deliberately separate (see _Why separate axes_).
+
+For Worktree mode, recapture the candidate digest after both reports return. If it differs from `candidate_digest`, mark both reports as reviewing a **stale candidate** and return `blocked`; the caller may start a new review against a new capture, but this invocation must not aggregate findings from different bytes. Recheck the same digest again at the completion/checkpoint boundary.
+
+State the reviewed `review_mode`, fixed point, candidate digest and coverage before the two reports. End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.
+
+## Why separate axes
+
+A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
+
+- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**
+- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**
+- Code that implements the spec but diverges from the confirmed prototype or design system → **Spec pass, UI fidelity fail.**
+
+Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

package/template/.cursor/skills/code-review/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Code Review"
+  short_description: "Review a diff on standards and spec"

package/template/.cursor/skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Deepening
+
+How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
+
+## Dependency categories
+
+When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.
+
+### 1. In-process
+
+Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable — merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
+
+### 2. Local-substitutable
+
+Dependencies that have local test stand-ins (PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the stand-in exists. The deepened module is tested with the stand-in running in the test suite. The seam is internal; no port at the module's external interface.
+
+### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters)
+
+Your own services across a network boundary (microservices, internal APIs). Define a **port** (interface) at the seam. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected as an **adapter**. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses an HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.
+
+Recommendation shape: *"Define a port at the seam, implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic sits in one deep module even though it's deployed across a network."*
+
+### 4. True external (Mock)
+
+Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port; tests provide a mock adapter.
+
+## Seam discipline
+
+- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a port unless at least two adapters are justified (typically production + test). A single-adapter seam is just indirection.
+- **Internal seams vs external seams.** A deep module can have internal seams (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the external seam at its interface. Don't expose internal seams through the interface just because tests use them.
+
+## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer
+
+- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist — delete them.
+- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
+- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
+- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.

package/template/.cursor/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Design It Twice
+
+When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
+
+Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Frame the problem space
+
+Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
+
+- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
+- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
+
+Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
+
+### 2. Spawn sub-agents
+
+Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
+
+Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
+
+- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
+- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
+- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
+- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
+
+Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
+
+Each sub-agent outputs:
+
+1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
+2. Usage example showing how callers use it
+3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
+4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
+
+### 3. Present and compare
+
+Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
+
+After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.

package/template/.cursor/skills/codebase-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+name: codebase-design
+description: Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
+---
+
+# Codebase Design
+
+Design **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface. Use this language and these principles wherever code is being designed or restructured. The aim is leverage for callers, locality for maintainers, and testability for everyone.
+
+## Glossary
+
+Use these terms exactly — don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
+
+**Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service.
+
+**Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — they refer only to the type-level surface).
+
+**Implementation** — what's inside a module, its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for "adapter" when the seam is the topic; "implementation" otherwise.
+
+**Depth** — leverage at the interface: the amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
+
+**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_ — a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. Where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it. _Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).
+
+**Adapter** — a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).
+
+**Leverage** — what callers get from depth: more capability per unit of interface they learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
+
+**Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.
+
+## Deep vs shallow
+
+**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation:
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────┐
+│   Small Interface   │  ← Few methods, simple params
+├─────────────────────┤
+│                     │
+│  Deep Implementation│  ← Complex logic hidden
+│                     │
+└─────────────────────┘
+```
+
+**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid):
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────┐
+│       Large Interface           │  ← Many methods, complex params
+├─────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Thin Implementation            │  ← Just passes through
+└─────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+When designing an interface, ask:
+
+- Can I reduce the number of methods?
+- Can I simplify the parameters?
+- Can I hide more complexity inside?
+
+## Principles
+
+- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts — they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.
+- **The deletion test.** Imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
+- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.
+- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.
+
+## Designing for testability
+
+Good interfaces make testing natural:
+
+1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them.**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function processOrder(order) {
+     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
+   }
+   ```
+
+2. **Return results, don't produce side effects.**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
+     cart.total -= discount;
+   }
+   ```
+
+3. **Small surface area.** Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests).
+- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.
+- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.
+- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.
+- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.
+
+## Rejected framings
+
+- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.
+- **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow — interface here includes every fact a caller must know.
+- **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.
+
+## Going deeper
+
+- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies** — see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing.
+- **Exploring alternative interfaces** — see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.

package/template/.cursor/skills/codebase-design/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Codebase Design"
+  short_description: "Vocabulary for deep-module design"

package/template/.cursor/skills/competitive-intelligence/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+name: competitive-intelligence
+description: Use when researching competitors, market positioning, pricing, feature gaps, customer sentiment, or category trends before Discovery, Spec, product strategy, or roadmap decisions.
+---
+
+# Competitive Intelligence
+
+Source requested for this project: `anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins`, `sales/skills/competitive-intelligence`.
+
+Use this skill when competitive or market facts are needed to shape product Discovery, Spec scope, positioning, differentiation, pricing assumptions, or roadmap tradeoffs.
+
+## Core Rules
+
+- Browse or verify current public sources before making factual claims about competitors, pricing, features, market position, funding, partnerships, product releases, or customer sentiment.
+- Separate facts, evidence, and inference. Do not present strategy guesses as verified competitor intent.
+- Prefer primary or near-primary sources: official product pages, docs, pricing pages, changelogs, release notes, filings, case studies, status pages, marketplace listings, reputable analyst reports, and dated customer reviews.
+- Record dates for time-sensitive claims. Pricing, packaging, roadmap, customer logos, and feature availability can change quickly.
+- Persistent project outputs should use Chinese body text by default. Keep competitor names, product names, URLs, API names, and quoted identifiers unchanged.
+- Do not bypass paywalls, scrape private systems, or use confidential information. Public evidence only unless the user explicitly provides internal material.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Define the intelligence question:
+   - Which product decision will this inform?
+   - Which competitors or substitute workflows are in scope?
+   - Which markets, user segments, regions, editions, or use cases matter?
+   - What must be decided after the research?
+2. Build an evidence plan:
+   - Official sources for product capabilities and pricing.
+   - Documentation and changelogs for depth and recency.
+   - Reviews, community posts, app marketplaces, and job posts for adoption and pain signals.
+   - Analyst, media, or public filings for market context when relevant.
+3. Capture evidence with source links and dates:
+   - Feature / capability evidence.
+   - Pricing / packaging evidence.
+   - UX / onboarding evidence.
+   - Integration / ecosystem evidence.
+   - Customer segment and positioning evidence.
+   - Complaints, workarounds, or unmet needs.
+4. Synthesize:
+   - Competitor positioning.
+   - Table-stakes capabilities.
+   - Differentiators and defensibility.
+   - Gaps and underserved jobs-to-be-done.
+   - Risks if we copy the competitor too closely.
+   - Product opportunities for Spec or roadmap.
+5. Hand off to lifecycle assets:
+   - Update Discovery findings in `docs/.scratch/<feature>/discovery/`.
+   - Create or update a competitor matrix in `docs/.scratch/<feature>/discovery/reports/`.
+   - Feed stable user, pain, MVP, non-goal, and success criteria into `grill-with-docs` and `to-spec`.
+   - Record uncertain claims as assumptions, not requirements.
+
+## Output Shape
+
+For a quick brief:
+
+```markdown
+## 竞品情报简报
+
+### 研究问题
+- <本次情报要支持的产品决策>
+
+### 范围
+- 竞品 / 替代方案：<list>
+- 用户 / 市场：<scope>
+- 时间范围：<date>
+
+### 关键结论
+- <fact or inference, clearly labeled>
+
+### 证据表
+| 结论 | 证据 | 来源 | 日期 | 置信度 |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+
+### 竞品矩阵
+| 维度 | 竞品 A | 竞品 B | 我们的机会 |
+|---|---|---|---|
+
+### Spec 输入
+- 用户 / 痛点：
+- MVP 建议：
+- 非目标范围：
+- 验收或验证建议：
+
+### 风险与待验证假设
+- <assumption>
+```
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- Do not treat competitive parity as a product requirement. Convert evidence into user value, MVP boundaries, and testable acceptance criteria.
+- Do not copy competitor UX, text, proprietary workflows, screenshots, or private materials into project artifacts.
+- If sources conflict, show both and mark confidence rather than forcing a false conclusion.
+- If current web access is unavailable, state the limitation and produce only a research plan or hypothesis list.

package/template/.cursor/skills/cross-repo-implementation-routing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+name: cross-repo-implementation-routing
+description: Use when a Harness change or vertical slice may require work across external frontend/backend implementation repositories.
+---
+
+# Cross Repo Implementation Routing
+
+用于从一个 Harness change 或垂直切片判断需要改哪些实现仓库，并把 Harness、后端、前端、契约和验证证据绑定起来。
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Harness change / Spec Delta change。
+- 垂直切片 Ticket 或实施计划。
+- OpenAPI Freeze 或无 API 影响记录。
+- 已登记的实现仓库记录；没有登记时先使用 `implementation-repo-onboarding`。
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. 读取 `docs/process/implementation-repo-integration.md` 和当前 change 资产。
+2. 判断影响面：Harness-only、backend-only、frontend-only、backend+frontend、contract-only、release-only。
+3. 确认每个受影响实现仓库已有登记记录；缺失则阻断并要求 onboarding。
+4. 核对项目根路径：Harness 内项目必须是 `apps/backend/<project>/` 或 `apps/frontend/<project>/`；`apps/backend/`、`apps/frontend/` 只能作为容器，`app/backend/`、`app/frontend/` 及其子路径必须阻断。外部仓库记录各自的真实项目根。
+5. 输出最小任务分配：Harness 文档 / OpenAPI / 后端 MR / 前端 MR / 验证 / 发布。
+6. 按 `docs/templates/cross-repo-slice-template.md` 生成切片记录草案。
+7. 给出 fresh verification 命令和阶段 checkpoint 回写字段。
+
+## Routing Matrix
+
+| 影响 | 必需记录 |
+|---|---|
+| Harness-only | change、文档路径、验证命令、checkpoint |
+| backend-only | backend repo、branch、MR / PR、测试命令、CI、OpenAPI 是否受影响 |
+| frontend-only | frontend repo、branch、MR / PR、lint / type-check / build、API client 是否受影响 |
+| backend+frontend | OpenAPI Freeze、generated client、后端验证、前端验证、端到端验收 |
+| contract-only | OpenAPI spec、Freeze 记录、前后端消费确认 |
+| release-only | release note、rollout、rollback、观察信号 |
+
+## Boundaries
+
+- 不直接修改实现仓库代码。
+- 不创建或推送分支，除非用户在执行任务中明确授权。
+- 不允许前后端 MR / PR 信息只停留在实现仓库；必须回写 Harness 记录。
+- 如果 API 契约变化但没有 Freeze，必须回到 API Draft / Freeze 阶段。
+
+## Output
+
+- 跨仓库实现路由结论。
+- backend / frontend / harness 三方任务分配。
+- cross-repo slice 草案。
+- fresh verification 与 checkpoint 字段。
+- 阻断项和人审点。

package/template/.cursor/skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+name: diagnosing-bugs
+description: Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
+---
+
+# Diagnosing Bugs
+
+A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
+
+When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+## Redact
+
+This skill has you show commands, outputs and captured artifacts. **Redact every secret first** — write `<REDACTED>` in its place. Build loops against env vars, so the credential stays in the environment rather than in what you show. Captured artifacts carry auth headers: quote only the lines that carry the signal.
+
+If the redacted output is not enough to diagnose the bug, say so and ask the user.
+
+## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
+
+**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug — one that goes red on _this_ bug — you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.
+
+Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
+
+### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+
+1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
+2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
+3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
+4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
+5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
+6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
+7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
+8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
+9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+
+Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
+
+### Tighten the loop
+
+Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it:
+
+- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
+- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
+- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
+
+A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight — a debugging superpower.
+
+### Non-deterministic bugs
+
+The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
+
+### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
+
+Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a redacted captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
+
+### Completion criterion — a tight loop that goes red
+
+Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** — a script path, a test invocation, a curl — that you have **already run at least once** (show the invocation and its output, redacted), and that is:
+
+- [ ] **Red-capable** — it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring" — it must be able to _catch this specific bug_.
+- [ ] **Deterministic** — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above).
+- [ ] **Fast** — seconds, not minutes.
+- [ ] **Agent-runnable** — you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`.
+
+If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop — jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2.
+
+## Phase 2 — Reproduce + minimise
+
+Run the loop. Watch it go red — the bug appears.
+
+Confirm:
+
+- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
+- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
+- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
+
+### Minimise
+
+Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut — keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.
+
+Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.
+
+Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing** — removing any one of them makes the loop go green.
+
+Do not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised.
+
+## Phase 3 — Hypothesise
+
+Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
+
+Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.
+
+> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."
+
+If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.
+
+**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.
+
+## Phase 4 — Instrument
+
+Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**
+
+Tool preference:
+
+1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
+2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
+3. Never "log everything and grep".
+
+**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
+
+**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.
+
+## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
+
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
+
+If a correct seam exists:
+
+1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
+2. Watch it fail.
+3. Apply the fix.
+4. Watch it pass.
+5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
+
+## Phase 6 — Cleanup
+
+Required before declaring done:
+
+- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
+- [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)
+- [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix)
+- [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)
+- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message, so the next debugger learns

package/template/.cursor/skills/diagnosing-bugs/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Diagnosing Bugs"
+  short_description: "Diagnose hard bugs and regressions"