devflow-kit 1.8.3 → 2.0.0

package/plugins/devflow-specify/commands/specify.md

@@ -1,186 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Specify a single feature through requirements exploration and interactive clarification - creates a well-defined GitHub issue ready for /implement
----
-
-# Specify Command
-
-Transform a rough feature idea into a well-defined, implementation-ready GitHub issue through multi-perspective requirements exploration and user clarification.
-
-**Focus**: Requirements only (what/why/for whom), not implementation (that's `/implement`'s job).
-
-## Usage
-
-```
-/specify User authentication with social login
-/specify Rate limiting for API endpoints
-/specify   (use conversation context)
-```
-
-## Input
-
-`$ARGUMENTS` contains whatever follows `/specify`:
-- Feature description: "User authentication with social login"
-- Empty: infer from conversation context
-
-## Clarification Gates
-
-**MANDATORY**: Three gates that must complete before proceeding:
-
-| Gate | When | Purpose |
-|------|------|---------|
-| Gate 0 | Before exploration | Confirm understanding of feature idea |
-| Gate 1 | After exploration | Validate scope and priorities |
-| Gate 2 | Before issue creation | Confirm acceptance criteria |
-
-No gate may be skipped. If user says "whatever you think", state recommendation and get explicit approval.
-
-## Phases
-
-### Phase 1: Gate 0 - Confirm Understanding
-
-Present interpretation to user:
-- Core problem this solves
-- Target users
-- Expected outcome
-- Key assumptions
-
-Use AskUserQuestion to confirm understanding before spawning any agents.
-
-### Phase 2: Orient
-
-Spawn Skimmer agent for codebase context:
-
-```
-Task(subagent_type="Skimmer"):
-"Orient in codebase for requirements exploration: {feature}
-Run rskim on source directories (NOT repo root) to find: project structure, similar features, patterns, integration points
-Return: codebase context for requirements (not implementation details)"
-```
-
-### Phase 3: Load Project Knowledge
-
-Read `.memory/knowledge/decisions.md` and `.memory/knowledge/pitfalls.md`. Pass their content as context to the Explore agents below — prior decisions constrain requirements, known pitfalls inform failure modes.
-
-### Phase 4: Explore Requirements (Parallel)
-
-Spawn 4 Explore agents **in a single message**, each with Skimmer context and project knowledge (if loaded):
-
-| Focus | Thoroughness | Find |
-|-------|-------------|------|
-| User perspective | medium | Target users, goals, pain points, user journeys |
-| Similar features | medium | Comparable features, scope patterns, edge cases |
-| Constraints | quick | Dependencies, business rules, security, performance, **prior architectural decisions** |
-| Failure modes | quick | Error states, edge cases, validation needs, **known pitfalls** |
-
-### Phase 5: Synthesize Exploration
-
-**WAIT** for Phase 4, then spawn Synthesizer:
-
-```
-Task(subagent_type="Synthesizer"):
-"Synthesize EXPLORATION outputs for: {feature}
-Mode: exploration
-Combine into: user needs, similar features, constraints, failure modes"
-```
-
-### Phase 6: Plan Scope (Parallel)
-
-Spawn 3 Plan agents **in a single message**, each with exploration synthesis:
-
-| Focus | Output |
-|-------|--------|
-| User stories | Actors, actions, outcomes in "As X, I want Y, so that Z" format |
-| Scope boundaries | v1 MVP, v2 deferred, out of scope, dependencies |
-| Acceptance criteria | Success/failure/edge case criteria (testable) |
-
-### Phase 7: Synthesize Planning
-
-**WAIT** for Phase 6, then spawn Synthesizer:
-
-```
-Task(subagent_type="Synthesizer"):
-"Synthesize PLANNING outputs for: {feature}
-Mode: planning
-Combine into: user stories, scope breakdown, acceptance criteria, open questions"
-```
-
-### Phase 8: Gate 1 - Validate Scope
-
-Use AskUserQuestion to validate:
-- Primary problem being solved
-- Priority level (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
-- v1 scope selection (minimal/medium/full)
-- Explicit exclusions
-
-### Phase 9: Gate 2 - Confirm Criteria
-
-Present specification summary, then use AskUserQuestion for final confirmation:
-- Success UX pattern
-- Error handling approach
-- Ready to create issue / Needs changes / Cancel
-
-### Phase 10: Create Issue
-
-Create GitHub issue with `gh issue create`:
-- Title: feature name
-- Body: problem statement, user stories, scope (v1/deferred/excluded), acceptance criteria, constraints, priority
-- Labels: feature, priority level
-
-Report issue number and URL.
-
-## Architecture
-
-```
-/specify (orchestrator - spawns agents only)
-│
-├─ Phase 1: GATE 0 - Confirm Understanding ⛔ MANDATORY
-│  └─ AskUserQuestion: Validate interpretation
-│
-├─ Phase 2: Orient
-│  └─ Skimmer agent (codebase context via skim)
-│
-├─ Phase 3: Load Project Knowledge
-│  └─ Read decisions.md + pitfalls.md
-│
-├─ Phase 4: Explore Requirements (PARALLEL)
-│  ├─ Explore: User perspective
-│  ├─ Explore: Similar features
-│  ├─ Explore: Constraints
-│  └─ Explore: Failure modes
-│
-├─ Phase 5: Synthesize Exploration
-│  └─ Synthesizer agent (mode: exploration)
-│
-├─ Phase 6: Plan Scope (PARALLEL)
-│  ├─ Plan: User stories
-│  ├─ Plan: Scope boundaries
-│  └─ Plan: Acceptance criteria
-│
-├─ Phase 7: Synthesize Planning
-│  └─ Synthesizer agent (mode: planning)
-│
-├─ Phase 8: GATE 1 - Validate Scope ⛔ MANDATORY
-│  └─ AskUserQuestion: Confirm scope and priorities
-│
-├─ Phase 9: GATE 2 - Confirm Criteria ⛔ MANDATORY
-│  └─ AskUserQuestion: Final spec approval
-│
-├─ Phase 10: Create Issue
-│  └─ gh issue create
-│
-└─ Report: Issue number, URL, /implement command
-```
-
-## Principles
-
-1. **Confirm before exploring** - Validate understanding with user before spawning agents
-2. **Requirements, not implementation** - Focus on what and why, not how
-3. **Multiple perspectives** - Explore from user, scope, constraint, and failure angles
-4. **User drives decisions** - Three mandatory gates ensure user approval
-5. **Scope ruthlessly** - Small, focused issues ship faster
-6. **Testable criteria** - Every requirement must be verifiable
-7. **Enable /implement** - Output must be actionable for implementation
-
-## Error Handling
-
-If user selects "Needs changes" at any gate, iterate until confirmed. If "Cancel", stop gracefully without creating issue.

package/plugins/devflow-specify/skills/agent-teams/SKILL.md

@@ -1,124 +0,0 @@
----
-name: agent-teams
-description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "create an agent team", "spawn teammates", "set up debate protocol", "coordinate agents", or discusses peer-to-peer agent collaboration, consensus formation, or team-based workflows. Provides patterns for team spawning, message passing, adversarial debate, and quality gates driven by multi-agent consensus.
-user-invocable: false
-allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob
----
-
-# Agent Teams Patterns
-
-Patterns for collaborative multi-agent workflows using Claude Code's Agent Teams feature. Teams enable peer-to-peer communication between agents, replacing one-way subagent reporting with adversarial debate and consensus.
-
-## Iron Law
-
-> **TEAMMATES CHALLENGE EACH OTHER**
->
-> Every finding must survive peer scrutiny. No unchallenged claims reach the final
-> report. A single agent's opinion is a hypothesis; consensus from debate is a finding.
-
----
-
-## When This Activates
-
-- Creating agent teams for review, implementation, or debugging
-- Spawning teammates with distinct perspectives
-- Coordinating multi-agent debate rounds
-- Forming consensus from conflicting findings
-
-## Core Patterns
-
-### Team Spawning
-
-Size team to task complexity. Assign distinct, non-overlapping perspectives.
-
-| Task Complexity | Team Size | Rationale |
-|----------------|-----------|-----------|
-| Simple review | 2-3 | Security + architecture sufficient |
-| Full review | 4-5 | Core perspectives covered |
-| Debug investigation | 3-5 | One per hypothesis |
-| Implementation | 2-4 | Domain-separated work units |
-| Specification | 3-4 | Debate requirements before user gates |
-| Resolution | 2-4 | Cross-validate fixes across batches |
-
-**Model guidance**: Explorers/Reviewers inherit parent model. Validators use `model: haiku`.
-
-### Detection and Fallback
-
-Attempt `TeamCreate`. If it fails or the tool is unavailable, fall back to parallel subagents:
-
-```
-try TeamCreate → success → proceed with team workflow
-                → failure → fall back to parallel Task() calls
-```
-
-Always document which mode was used in the final report.
-
-### Task List Coordination
-
-Use `TaskCreate` to give each teammate a trackable work unit. Lead checks `TaskList` for structured progress visibility beyond ad-hoc messages:
-
-```
-1. Lead creates tasks for each teammate's work unit
-2. Teammates claim tasks via TaskUpdate (owner: self)
-3. Teammates mark tasks completed when done
-4. Lead checks TaskList before proceeding to next phase
-```
-
-### Challenge Protocol
-
-1. **Initial work**: Each teammate completes independent analysis
-2. **Exchange**: Lead broadcasts "Share findings and challenge others"
-3. **Direct debate**: Teammates message each other with evidence
-4. **Resolution**: Contradictions resolved through 1-2 exchanges
-5. **Escalation**: Unresolved after 2 exchanges → report disagreement to lead
-
-### Consensus Formation
-
-| Agreement Level | Confidence | Report As |
-|----------------|------------|-----------|
-| Unanimous | HIGH | Confirmed finding |
-| Majority (>50%) | MEDIUM | Finding with noted dissent |
-| Split (50/50) | LOW | Disagreement with both perspectives |
-
-### Team Cleanup
-
-Lead MUST always handle cleanup:
-1. Ensure all teammates have completed or been shut down
-2. Call `TeamDelete` to release resources
-3. Verify no orphaned sessions remain
-4. **CRITICAL**: Confirm cleanup completed before creating next team
-
----
-
-## Limitations
-
-| Limitation | Impact | Guidance |
-|-----------|--------|----------|
-| One team per session | Cannot run two teams concurrently | Shut down and verify cleanup before creating next team |
-| No nested teams | Teammates cannot spawn sub-teams | Keep hierarchy flat; only lead creates teams |
-| No session resumption | Teammate state lost if interrupted | Start fresh; don't rely on teammate state persistence |
-| Shutdown can be slow | Cleanup may take several seconds | Wait for confirmation; don't race to create next team |
-| Task status may lag | Task list updates aren't instant | Use direct messages for time-sensitive coordination |
-| Permissions inherited | Teammates get lead's permissions at spawn | Cannot escalate permissions mid-session |
-
----
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-| Anti-Pattern | Correct Approach |
-|-------------|-----------------|
-| Overlapping perspectives | Assign distinct, non-overlapping focus areas |
-| Skipping debate round | Always require peer challenge before synthesis |
-| Unlimited debate | Cap at 2 exchanges per topic, then escalate |
-| Lead does analysis work | Lead coordinates only; teammates do analysis |
-| Ignoring minority opinion | Report dissent with evidence in final output |
-| Creating team before prior cleanup | Wait for TeamDelete confirmation, then create |
-| Messaging-only coordination | Use task list for structured progress tracking |
-
----
-
-## Extended References
-
-- `references/team-patterns.md` - Team structures for review, implement, debug, specify, resolve workflows
-- `references/communication.md` - Message protocols, broadcast patterns, debate formats
-- `references/cleanup.md` - Session management, orphan detection, resource cleanup

package/plugins/devflow-specify/skills/agent-teams/references/cleanup.md

@@ -1,104 +0,0 @@
-# Session Management and Cleanup
-
-## Team Lifecycle
-
-```
-1. Lead creates team
-2. Lead spawns teammates
-3. Teammates work independently
-4. Debate rounds (teammates message directly)
-5. Lead collects consensus
-6. Lead shuts down teammates
-7. Lead calls cleanup
-8. Lead verifies no orphans
-```
-
----
-
-## Cleanup Rules
-
-### Lead Responsibilities
-
-1. **Always call cleanup** - Even if team work was interrupted or errored
-2. **Shut down teammates first** - Before calling cleanup
-3. **Verify completion** - Check that no orphaned sessions remain
-
-### Error Handling
-
-If a teammate errors or hangs:
-1. Send shutdown message to the teammate
-2. Wait briefly for graceful shutdown
-3. Proceed with cleanup for remaining team
-4. Report the failed teammate in final output
-
-### Orphan Detection
-
-After cleanup, verify:
-- No tmux sessions from the team remain (split-pane mode)
-- No background processes from teammates
-- Team config at `~/.claude/teams/{team-name}/` is cleaned up
-
----
-
-## Known Limitations
-
-| Limitation | Mitigation |
-|-----------|------------|
-| No session resumption for teammates | Start fresh; don't rely on teammate state persistence |
-| One team per session | Queue team work sequentially if needed |
-| Task status may lag | Use direct messages for time-sensitive coordination |
-| No nested teams | Teammates cannot spawn sub-teams; keep hierarchy flat |
-| Split-pane requires tmux/iTerm2 | Fall back to in-process mode if unavailable |
-
----
-
-## Cost Management
-
-### Token Optimization
-
-| Strategy | Savings |
-|----------|---------|
-| Use haiku for validation teammates | ~70% per validation agent |
-| Limit debate to 2 rounds | Prevents runaway token usage |
-| Size teams to task (don't over-spawn) | Fewer agents = fewer tokens |
-| Shut down teammates promptly | No idle token consumption |
-
-### When NOT to Use Teams
-
-- Simple, single-focus tasks (use regular subagent)
-- Tasks requiring sequential dependency (no parallelism benefit)
-- Cost-sensitive operations where subagent is sufficient
-- Tasks where debate adds no value (e.g., formatting, simple fixes)
-
----
-
-## Sequential Team Transition Protocol
-
-Commands that create multiple teams (e.g., `/implement`, `/specify`) MUST follow this 4-step protocol between teams. Skipping steps causes silent failures due to the one-team-per-session constraint.
-
-```
-Step 1: SHUTDOWN — Send shutdown_request to each teammate by name
-  SendMessage(type: "shutdown_request", recipient: "{name}", content: "Phase complete")
-  Wait for each shutdown_response (approve: true)
-
-Step 2: DELETE — Remove team resources
-  TeamDelete
-
-Step 3: VERIFY — Confirm cleanup succeeded
-  If TeamDelete returned success → proceed
-  If TeamDelete failed → retry once after 5s
-  If retry fails → HALT and report to user:
-    "Team cleanup failed for {team-name}. Cannot create next team."
-
-Step 4: CREATE — Only now create the next team
-  TeamCreate(team_name: "{next-team-name}")
-```
-
-### Failure Modes
-
-| Failure | Action |
-|---------|--------|
-| Teammate ignores shutdown_request | Wait 30s, then proceed to TeamDelete (force cleanup) |
-| TeamDelete fails | Retry once after 5s delay |
-| TeamDelete retry fails | HALT execution, report to user |
-| TeamCreate fails after successful delete | Retry once; if fails, fall back to parallel Task() subagents |

package/plugins/devflow-specify/skills/agent-teams/references/communication.md

@@ -1,122 +0,0 @@
-# Communication Protocols
-
-## Message Types
-
-### Direct Message (one-to-one)
-
-Use when challenging a specific teammate's finding:
-
-```
-To [Security Reviewer]:
-"Your finding about SQL injection at api/users.ts:42 - I disagree.
-The parameterized query at line 45 handles this. Check the query builder
-pattern used throughout this codebase."
-```
-
-### Broadcast (one-to-all)
-
-Use when sharing findings that affect all teammates:
-
-```
-Broadcast:
-"I found that the auth middleware is bypassed for /api/internal/* routes.
-This affects security, architecture, and testing perspectives."
-```
-
----
-
-## Debate Protocol
-
-### Round Structure
-
-```
-Round 1: Initial findings (each teammate shares top findings)
-Round 2: Challenge round (teammates dispute or validate)
-Round 3: Resolution (update, withdraw, or escalate)
-```
-
-**Cap: 2 challenge exchanges per topic.** If unresolved, escalate to lead.
-
-### Challenge Format
-
-When challenging another teammate:
-
-```
-CHALLENGE to [Teammate]:
-- Finding: [what they claimed]
-- Evidence against: [your counter-evidence with file:line references]
-- Suggested resolution: [what you think is correct]
-```
-
-### Concession Format
-
-When accepting a challenge:
-
-```
-UPDATED based on [Teammate]'s challenge:
-- Original: [what I originally claimed]
-- Revised: [updated finding incorporating their evidence]
-```
-
-### Escalation Format
-
-When debate is unresolved after 2 exchanges:
-
-```
-ESCALATION to Lead:
-- Topic: [what we disagree about]
-- Position A: [first perspective with evidence]
-- Position B: [second perspective with evidence]
-- Recommendation: [which has stronger evidence, or "genuinely split"]
-```
-
----
-
-## Lead Coordination Messages
-
-### Initiating Debate
-
-```
-Lead broadcast:
-"All teammates: Share your top 3-5 findings. After sharing, challenge
-any finding you disagree with. Provide evidence (file:line references).
-You have 2 exchange rounds to resolve disagreements."
-```
-
-### Ending Debate
-
-```
-Lead broadcast:
-"Debate round complete. Submit final findings with confidence levels:
-- HIGH: Unanimous or unchallenged with evidence
-- MEDIUM: Majority agreed, dissent noted
-- LOW: Split opinion, both perspectives included"
-```
-
-### Requesting Clarification
-
-```
-Lead to [Teammate]:
-"Your finding about X contradicts [Other Teammate]'s finding about Y.
-Can you address their evidence at [file:line]?"
-```
-
----
-
-## Output Aggregation
-
-### Consensus Report Structure
-
-```markdown
-## Confirmed Findings (HIGH confidence)
-[Findings all teammates agreed on or that survived challenge]
-
-## Majority Findings (MEDIUM confidence)
-[Findings most agreed on, with dissenting view noted]
-
-## Split Findings (LOW confidence)
-[Genuinely contested findings with both perspectives and evidence]
-
-## Withdrawn Findings
-[Findings that were disproved during debate]
-```