devflow-kit 1.8.3 → 2.0.1

package/plugins/devflow-implement/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]
-```

package/plugins/devflow-implement/skills/agent-teams/references/team-patterns.md

@@ -1,217 +0,0 @@
-# Team Patterns by Workflow
-
-## Task-Based Coordination
-
-All team workflows should use the shared task list for structured progress tracking:
-
-```
-1. Lead creates team
-2. Lead creates tasks (TaskCreate) for each teammate's work unit
-3. Lead spawns teammates, assigning tasks via TaskUpdate(owner)
-4. Teammates work, mark tasks completed via TaskUpdate(status: completed)
-5. Lead checks TaskList before proceeding to next phase
-6. Lead shuts down teammates, calls TeamDelete
-```
-
-**Example task creation for a review team:**
-
-```
-TaskCreate: "Security review of auth module" → assigned to Security Reviewer
-TaskCreate: "Architecture review of auth module" → assigned to Architecture Reviewer
-TaskCreate: "Performance review of auth module" → assigned to Performance Reviewer
-```
-
----
-
-## Review Team
-
-### Standard Review (4 perspectives)
-
-```
-Lead spawns:
-├── Security reviewer    → vulnerabilities, injection, auth, crypto
-├── Architecture reviewer → SOLID, coupling, layering, modularity
-├── Performance reviewer  → queries, algorithms, caching, I/O
-└── Quality reviewer      → complexity, tests, consistency, naming
-```
-
-### Extended Review (add conditionally)
-
-```
-Additional teammates based on changed files:
-├── TypeScript reviewer  → type safety, generics (if .ts/.tsx changed)
-├── React reviewer       → hooks, state, rendering (if .tsx/.jsx changed)
-├── Database reviewer    → schema, queries, migrations (if DB files changed)
-└── Dependencies reviewer → CVEs, versions, licenses (if package files changed)
-```
-
-### Review Debate Flow
-
-```
-1. Each reviewer analyzes independently
-2. Lead broadcasts: "Share top 3 findings and challenge others"
-3. Security challenges architecture: "This coupling creates attack surface"
-4. Architecture challenges performance: "Your caching suggestion breaks separation"
-5. Quality validates: "Tests don't cover the security concern raised"
-6. Lead collects consensus after max 2 exchange rounds
-```
-
----
-
-## Implementation Team
-
-### Exploration Team (4 perspectives)
-
-```
-Lead spawns:
-├── Architecture explorer  → existing patterns, module structure
-├── Integration explorer   → entry points, services, config
-├── Reusable code explorer → utilities, helpers, shared logic
-└── Edge case explorer     → error conditions, boundaries, race conditions
-```
-
-### Planning Team (3 perspectives)
-
-```
-Lead spawns:
-├── Implementation planner → step-by-step coding approach
-├── Testing planner        → test strategy and coverage plan
-└── Risk planner           → potential issues, rollback strategy
-```
-
-### Implementation Debate
-
-```
-1. Explorers share findings
-2. Architecture challenges edge cases: "This boundary isn't handled"
-3. Integration challenges reusable code: "That helper doesn't cover our case"
-4. Lead synthesizes consensus exploration
-
-5. Planners propose approaches
-6. Testing challenges implementation: "This approach is untestable"
-7. Risk challenges both: "Rollback is impossible with this migration"
-8. Lead synthesizes consensus plan
-```
-
----
-
-## Specification Team
-
-### Requirements Exploration Team (4 perspectives)
-
-```
-Lead spawns:
-├── User Perspective Explorer  → target users, goals, pain points, user journeys
-├── Similar Features Explorer  → comparable features, scope patterns, precedents
-├── Constraints Explorer       → dependencies, business rules, security, performance
-└── Failure Mode Explorer      → error states, edge cases, validation needs
-```
-
-### Requirements Debate Flow
-
-```
-1. Each explorer shares findings from their perspective
-2. Constraints challenges user perspective: "This requirement conflicts with X constraint"
-3. Failure modes challenges similar features: "That pattern failed in Y scenario"
-4. Similar features validates user perspective: "This UX pattern works well in Z"
-5. Lead collects consensus after max 2 exchange rounds
-```
-
-### Scope Planning Team (3 perspectives)
-
-```
-Lead spawns:
-├── User Stories Planner       → actors, actions, outcomes ("As X, I want Y, so that Z")
-├── Scope Boundaries Planner   → v1 MVP, v2 deferred, out of scope, dependencies
-└── Acceptance Criteria Planner → success/failure/edge case criteria (testable)
-```
-
-### Scope Debate Flow
-
-```
-1. Each planner presents their analysis
-2. Scope challenges user stories: "This story is too broad for v1"
-3. Acceptance challenges scope: "These boundaries leave this edge case uncovered"
-4. User stories challenges acceptance: "This criterion is untestable"
-5. Lead collects consensus after max 2 exchange rounds
-```
-
-**Note**: Specification teams complement (not replace) the 3 mandatory clarification gates. User still drives all decisions via Gate 0, Gate 1, and Gate 2.
-
----
-
-## Resolution Team
-
-### Cross-Validation Resolution Team
-
-```
-Lead spawns resolvers based on batches:
-├── Resolver A → Batch 1 issues (file-a cluster)
-├── Resolver B → Batch 2 issues (file-b cluster)
-└── Resolver C → Batch 3 issues (file-c cluster)
-```
-
-### Resolution Debate Flow
-
-```
-1. Each resolver independently validates + fixes their batch
-2. Lead broadcasts: "Review each other's fixes for cross-batch conflicts"
-3. Resolver A: "My fix in file-a.ts changes the interface that Resolver B depends on"
-4. Resolver B: "Confirmed — my fix in file-b.ts imports from that interface"
-5. Resolvers coordinate the fix or escalate conflict to lead
-6. Lead collects consensus after max 2 exchange rounds
-```
-
-### When Cross-Validation Adds Value
-
-- Fixes touch shared interfaces or types
-- Resolvers modify files that import from each other
-- Batch fixes could introduce conflicting patterns
-- Large resolution sets (>5 issues across multiple files)
-
-### When to Skip Cross-Validation
-
-- All fixes are in completely independent files
-- Only 1-2 batches with no shared dependencies
-- Fixes are trivial (typos, formatting, naming)
-
----
-
-## Debug Team
-
-### Hypothesis Investigation (3-5 hypotheses)
-
-```
-Lead spawns (one per hypothesis):
-├── Hypothesis A investigator → state management / race condition
-├── Hypothesis B investigator → configuration / environment
-├── Hypothesis C investigator → edge case / input validation
-└── Hypothesis D investigator → dependency / version issue
-```
-
-### Debug Debate Flow
-
-```
-1. Each investigator gathers evidence for their hypothesis
-2. Lead broadcasts: "Present evidence. Disprove each other."
-3. Investigator A: "Found race condition at file:line"
-4. Investigator B: "My config theory is disproved by A's evidence"
-5. Investigator C: "A's race condition doesn't explain the timing"
-6. Converge on surviving hypothesis with strongest evidence
-```
-
----
-
-## Team Size Guidelines
-
-| Scenario | Min | Max | Rationale |
-|----------|-----|-----|-----------|
-| Quick review | 2 | 3 | Focused, low cost |
-| Full review | 4 | 5 | Core perspectives |
-| Exploration | 3 | 4 | Diminishing returns beyond 4 |
-| Planning | 2 | 3 | Too many cooks |
-| Specification (explore) | 3 | 4 | Requirements need diverse perspectives |
-| Specification (scope) | 2 | 3 | Scope planning benefits from focus |
-| Resolution | 2 | 4 | One per independent batch |
-| Debugging | 3 | 5 | One per viable hypothesis |
-| Parallel coding | 2 | 3 | Merge complexity grows fast |

package/plugins/devflow-implement/skills/implementation-patterns/SKILL.md

@@ -1,162 +0,0 @@
----
-name: implementation-patterns
-description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "create an API endpoint", "add CRUD operations", "implement event handlers", "set up logging", "add configuration", or builds features involving database operations, REST/GraphQL APIs, pub/sub patterns, or service configuration. Provides implementation patterns that follow existing codebase conventions.
-user-invocable: false
-allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob
----
-
-# Implementation Patterns
-
-Reference for common implementation patterns. Use these patterns to write consistent, maintainable code.
-
-## Iron Law
-
-> **FOLLOW EXISTING PATTERNS**
->
-> Match the codebase style, don't invent new conventions. If the project uses Result types,
-> use Result types. If it uses exceptions, use exceptions. Consistency trumps personal
-> preference. The best pattern is the one already in use.
-
-## When This Skill Activates
-
-- Implementing CRUD operations
-- Creating API endpoints
-- Writing event handlers
-- Setting up configuration
-- Adding logging
-- Database operations
-
----
-
-## Pattern Categories
-
-### CRUD Operations
-
-Create, Read, Update, Delete with Result types and proper error handling.
-
-**Core pattern**: Validate -> Transform -> Persist -> Return
-
-```typescript
-async function createUser(input: CreateUserInput): Promise<Result<User, CreateError>> {
-  const validated = validateCreateUser(input);
-  if (!validated.ok) return Err({ type: 'validation', details: validated.error });
-
-  const user: User = { id: generateId(), ...validated.value, createdAt: new Date() };
-  const saved = await userRepository.save(user);
-  if (!saved.ok) return Err({ type: 'persistence', details: saved.error });
-
-  return Ok(saved.value);
-}
-```
-
-### API Endpoints
-
-REST endpoint structure with auth, validation, and error mapping.
-
-**Core pattern**: Parse request -> Validate auth -> Execute -> Format response
-
-```typescript
-export async function handleGetUser(req: Request): Promise<Response> {
-  const id = parsePathParam(req, 'id');
-  if (!id.ok) return errorResponse(400, 'Invalid user ID');
-
-  const auth = await authenticate(req);
-  if (!auth.ok) return errorResponse(401, 'Unauthorized');
-
-  const result = await getUser(id.value);
-  if (!result.ok) return handleError(result.error);
-
-  return jsonResponse(200, result.value);
-}
-```
-
-### Event Handlers
-
-Async event processing with idempotency and error recovery.
-
-**Core pattern**: Validate event -> Process -> Handle errors -> Acknowledge
-
-```typescript
-async function handleUserCreated(event: UserCreatedEvent): Promise<void> {
-  const validated = validateEvent(event);
-  if (!validated.ok) { logger.warn('Invalid event'); return; }
-
-  await sendWelcomeEmail(event.userId);
-  await createDefaultSettings(event.userId);
-  logger.info('Event processed successfully');
-}
-```
-
-### Configuration
-
-Environment config with schema validation and feature flags.
-
-**Core pattern**: Define schema -> Load from env -> Validate -> Export frozen
-
-```typescript
-const ConfigSchema = z.object({
-  PORT: z.coerce.number().default(3000),
-  DATABASE_URL: z.string().url(),
-  NODE_ENV: z.enum(['development', 'production', 'test']).default('development'),
-});
-
-export const config = Object.freeze(ConfigSchema.parse(process.env));
-```
-
-### Logging
-
-Structured logging with context propagation and operation tracking.
-
-**Core pattern**: Context -> Level -> Message -> Data
-
-```typescript
-const logger = createLogger({ requestId: req.id, userId: user.id });
-logger.info('Processing order', { orderId: order.id, items: order.items.length });
-```
-
----
-
-## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
-
-| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
-|--------------|---------|-----|
-| God functions | 500-line functions doing everything | Compose small, focused functions |
-| Implicit dependencies | Using global state (`db.query(...)`) | Inject dependencies explicitly |
-| Swallowing errors | Empty catch blocks | Handle or propagate with Result types |
-| Magic values | Unexplained numbers/strings | Extract to named constants |
-
----
-
-## Build Optimization
-
-Production builds must exclude test files, debug artifacts, and sourcemaps.
-
-```json
-// tsconfig.prod.json
-{
-  "exclude": ["**/*.test.ts", "**/*.spec.ts", "**/tests/**"]
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Implementation Checklist
-
-Before implementing, verify:
-
-- [ ] Using Result types for operations that can fail
-- [ ] Validating input at system boundaries
-- [ ] Logging with context (requestId, userId, operation)
-- [ ] Handling all error cases explicitly
-- [ ] Making operations idempotent where possible
-- [ ] Using transactions for multi-step operations
-- [ ] No hardcoded values (use config)
-- [ ] Following existing codebase patterns
-
----
-
-## Extended References
-
-For full implementation examples:
-- `references/violations.md` - Extended violation examples (CRUD, API, Events, Config, Logging)
-- `references/patterns.md` - Extended correct patterns (CRUD, API, Events, Config, Logging)

package/plugins/devflow-implement/skills/knowledge-persistence/SKILL.md

@@ -1,128 +0,0 @@
----
-name: knowledge-persistence
-description: >-
-  This skill should be used when recording architectural decisions or pitfalls
-  to project knowledge files, or when loading prior decisions and known pitfalls
-  for context during investigation, specification, or review.
-user-invocable: false
-allowed-tools: Read, Write, Bash
----
-
-# Knowledge Persistence
-
-Record architectural decisions and pitfalls to `.memory/knowledge/` files. This is the single source of truth for the extraction procedure — commands reference this skill instead of inlining the steps.
-
-## Iron Law
-
-> **SINGLE SOURCE OF TRUTH**
->
-> All knowledge extraction follows this procedure exactly. Commands never inline
-> their own extraction steps — they read this skill and follow it.
-
----
-
-## File Locations
-
-```
-.memory/knowledge/
-├── decisions.md    # ADR entries (append-only)
-└── pitfalls.md     # PF entries (area-specific gotchas)
-```
-
-## File Formats
-
-### decisions.md (ADR entries)
-
-**Template header** (create if file missing):
-```
-<!-- TL;DR: 0 decisions. Key: -->
-# Architectural Decisions
-
-Append-only. Status changes allowed; deletions prohibited.
-```
-
-**Entry format**:
-```markdown
-## ADR-{NNN}: {Title}
-
-- **Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
-- **Status**: Accepted
-- **Context**: {Why this decision was needed}
-- **Decision**: {What was decided}
-- **Consequences**: {Tradeoffs and implications}
-- **Source**: {command and identifier, e.g. `/implement TASK-123`}
-```
-
-### pitfalls.md (PF entries)
-
-**Template header** (create if file missing):
-```
-<!-- TL;DR: 0 pitfalls. Key: -->
-# Known Pitfalls
-
-Area-specific gotchas, fragile areas, and past bugs.
-```
-
-**Entry format**:
-```markdown
-## PF-{NNN}: {Short description}
-
-- **Area**: {file paths or module names}
-- **Issue**: {What goes wrong}
-- **Impact**: {Consequences if hit}
-- **Resolution**: {How to fix or avoid}
-- **Source**: {command and identifier, e.g. `/code-review branch-name`}
-```
-
----
-
-## Extraction Procedure
-
-Follow these steps when recording decisions or pitfalls:
-
-1. **Read** the target file (`.memory/knowledge/decisions.md` or `.memory/knowledge/pitfalls.md`). If it doesn't exist, create it with the template header above.
-2. **Check capacity** — count `## ADR-` or `## PF-` headings. If >=50, log "Knowledge base at capacity — skipping new entry" and stop.
-3. **Find next ID** — find highest NNN via regex (`/^## ADR-(\d+)/` or `/^## PF-(\d+)/`), default to 0. Increment by 1.
-4. **Deduplicate** (pitfalls only) — skip if an entry with the same Area + Issue already exists.
-5. **Append** the new entry using the format above.
-6. **Update TL;DR** — rewrite the `<!-- TL;DR: ... -->` comment on line 1 to reflect the new count and key topics.
-
-## Lock Protocol
-
-When writing, use a mkdir-based lock:
-- Lock path: `.memory/.knowledge.lock`
-- Timeout: 30 seconds (fail if lock not acquired)
-- Stale recovery: if lock directory is >60 seconds old, remove it and retry
-- Release lock after write completes (remove lock directory)
-
-## Loading Knowledge for Context
-
-When a command needs prior knowledge as input (not recording):
-
-1. Read `.memory/knowledge/decisions.md` if it exists
-2. Read `.memory/knowledge/pitfalls.md` if it exists
-3. Pass content as context to downstream agents — prior decisions constrain scope, known pitfalls inform investigation
-
-If neither file exists, skip silently. No error, no empty-file creation.
-
-## Operation Budget
-
-Recording: do inline (no agent spawn), 2-3 Read/Write operations total.
-Loading: 1-2 Read operations, pass as context string.
-
----
-
-## Extended References
-
-For entry examples and status lifecycle details:
-- `references/examples.md` - Full decision and pitfall entry examples
-
----
-
-## Success Criteria
-
-- [ ] Entry appended with correct sequential ID
-- [ ] No duplicate pitfalls (same Area + Issue)
-- [ ] TL;DR comment updated with current count
-- [ ] Lock acquired before write, released after
-- [ ] Capacity limit (50) respected

package/plugins/devflow-implement/skills/knowledge-persistence/references/examples.md

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-# Knowledge Persistence Examples
-
-## Decision Entry Example
-
-```markdown
-## ADR-001: Use mkdir-based locks for concurrent session serialization
-
-- **Date**: 2026-03-03
-- **Status**: Accepted
-- **Context**: Multiple Claude Code sessions can run on the same project simultaneously (different terminals, SSH, etc.). Memory writes must serialize to prevent corruption.
-- **Decision**: Use `mkdir` as an atomic lock primitive. Lock directory at `.memory/.knowledge.lock`. 30-second timeout with 60-second stale recovery.
-- **Consequences**: Simple, cross-platform, no external dependencies. Cannot detect holder PID if lock is stale — relies on age-based recovery. Sufficient for low-contention writes.
-- **Source**: `/implement #99`
-```
-
-## Pitfall Entry Example
-
-```markdown
-## PF-001: Orphaned teams variants silently skipped
-
-- **Area**: plugins/devflow-*/commands/*-teams.md, src/cli/installer
-- **Issue**: The installer iterates base `.md` files and looks up matching `-teams.md` variants. A `-teams.md` file without a corresponding base `.md` is silently ignored during installation.
-- **Impact**: Teams variant appears committed but never installs. Users on `--teams` mode silently get no command.
-- **Resolution**: Always create the base `.md` file first. CI should validate that every `-teams.md` has a matching base file.
-- **Source**: `/code-review feat/agent-teams`
-```
-
-## Status Lifecycle (Decisions Only)
-
-Decisions support status transitions:
-- `Accepted` — current, in effect
-- `Superseded by ADR-NNN` — replaced by a newer decision
-- `Deprecated` — no longer relevant, kept for history
-
-Pitfalls have no status field — they remain until manually removed.
-
-## Deduplication Logic (Pitfalls Only)
-
-Before appending a new pitfall, check existing entries:
-1. Extract `Area` and `Issue` from the new entry
-2. Compare against all existing `PF-*` entries
-3. If both Area AND Issue match an existing entry (case-insensitive substring), skip
-
-This prevents recording the same gotcha from multiple review cycles.