imhcode 1.0.0

package/skills/team-builder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+name: team-builder
+description: Interactive agent picker for composing and dispatching parallel teams
+origin: community
+---
+
+# Team Builder
+
+Interactive menu for browsing and composing agent teams on demand. Works with flat or domain-subdirectory agent collections.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- You have multiple agent personas (markdown files) and want to pick which ones to use for a task
+- You want to compose an ad-hoc team from different domains (e.g., Security + SEO + Architecture)
+- You want to browse what agents are available before deciding
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+Agent files must be markdown files containing a persona prompt (identity, rules, workflow, deliverables). The first `# Heading` is used as the agent name and the first paragraph as the description.
+
+Both flat and subdirectory layouts are supported:
+
+**Subdirectory layout** — domain is inferred from the folder name:
+
+```
+agents/
+├── engineering/
+│   ├── security-engineer.md
+│   └── software-architect.md
+├── marketing/
+│   └── seo-specialist.md
+└── sales/
+    └── discovery-coach.md
+```
+
+**Flat layout** — domain inferred from shared filename prefixes. A prefix counts as a domain when 2+ files share it. Files with unique prefixes go to "General". Note: the algorithm splits at the first `-`, so multi-word domains (e.g., `product-management`) should use the subdirectory layout instead:
+
+```
+agents/
+├── engineering-security-engineer.md
+├── engineering-software-architect.md
+├── marketing-seo-specialist.md
+├── marketing-content-strategist.md
+├── sales-discovery-coach.md
+└── sales-outbound-strategist.md
+```
+
+## Configuration
+
+Agents are discovered via two methods, merged and deduplicated by agent name:
+
+1. **`claude agents` command** (primary) — run `claude agents` to get all agents known to the CLI, including user agents, plugin agents (e.g. `everything-claude-code:architect`), and built-in agents. This automatically covers ECC marketplace installs without any path configuration.
+2. **File glob** (fallback, for reading agent content) — agent markdown files are read from:
+   - `./agents/**/*.md` + `./agents/*.md` — project-local agents
+   - `~/.claude/agents/**/*.md` + `~/.claude/agents/*.md` — global user agents
+
+Earlier sources take precedence when names collide: user agents > plugin agents > built-in agents. A custom path can be used instead if the user specifies one.
+
+## How It Works
+
+### Step 1: Discover Available Agents
+
+Run `claude agents` to get the full agent list. Parse each line:
+- **Plugin agents** are prefixed with `plugin-name:` (e.g., `everything-claude-code:security-reviewer`). Use the part after `:` as the agent name and the plugin name as the domain.
+- **User agents** have no prefix. Read the corresponding markdown file from `~/.claude/agents/` or `./agents/` to extract the name and description.
+- **Built-in agents** (e.g., `Explore`, `Plan`) are skipped unless the user explicitly asks to include them.
+
+For user agents loaded from markdown files:
+- **Subdirectory layout:** extract the domain from the parent folder name
+- **Flat layout:** collect all filename prefixes (text before the first `-`). A prefix qualifies as a domain only if it appears in 2 or more filenames (e.g., `engineering-security-engineer.md` and `engineering-software-architect.md` both start with `engineering` → Engineering domain). Files with unique prefixes (e.g., `code-reviewer.md`, `tdd-guide.md`) are grouped under "General"
+- Extract the agent name from the first `# Heading`. If no heading is found, derive the name from the filename (strip `.md`, replace hyphens with spaces, title-case)
+- Extract a one-line summary from the first paragraph after the heading
+
+If no agents are found after running `claude agents` and probing file locations, inform the user: "No agents found. Run `claude agents` to verify your setup." Then stop.
+
+### Step 2: Present Domain Menu
+
+```
+Available agent domains:
+1. Engineering — Software Architect, Security Engineer
+2. Marketing — SEO Specialist
+3. Sales — Discovery Coach, Outbound Strategist
+
+Pick domains or name specific agents (e.g., "1,3" or "security + seo"):
+```
+
+- Skip domains with zero agents (empty directories)
+- Show agent count per domain
+
+### Step 3: Handle Selection
+
+Accept flexible input:
+- Numbers: "1,3" selects all agents from Engineering and Sales
+- Names: "security + seo" fuzzy-matches against discovered agents
+- "all from engineering" selects every agent in that domain
+
+If more than 5 agents are selected, list them alphabetically and ask the user to narrow down: "You selected N agents (max 5). Pick which to keep, or say 'first 5' to use the first five alphabetically."
+
+Confirm selection:
+```
+Selected: Security Engineer + SEO Specialist
+What should they work on? (describe the task):
+```
+
+### Step 4: Spawn Agents in Parallel
+
+1. Read each selected agent's markdown file
+2. Prompt for the task description if not already provided
+3. Spawn all agents in parallel using the Agent tool:
+   - `subagent_type: "general-purpose"`
+   - `prompt: "{agent file content}\n\nTask: {task description}"`
+   - Each agent runs independently — no inter-agent communication needed
+4. If an agent fails (error, timeout, or empty output), note the failure inline (e.g., "Security Engineer: failed — [reason]") and continue with results from agents that succeeded
+
+### Step 5: Synthesize Results
+
+Collect all outputs and present a unified report:
+- Results grouped by agent
+- Synthesis section highlighting:
+  - Agreements across agents
+  - Conflicts or tensions between recommendations
+  - Recommended next steps
+
+If only 1 agent was selected, skip synthesis and present the output directly.
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Dynamic discovery only.** Never hardcode agent lists. New files in the directory auto-appear in the menu.
+- **Max 5 agents per team.** More than 5 produces diminishing returns and excessive token usage. Enforce at selection time.
+- **Parallel dispatch.** All agents run simultaneously — use the Agent tool's parallel invocation pattern.
+- **Parallel Agent calls, not TeamCreate.** This skill uses parallel Agent tool calls for independent work. TeamCreate (a Claude Code tool for multi-agent dialogue) is only needed when agents must debate or respond to each other.
+
+## Examples
+
+```
+User: team builder
+
+Claude:
+Available agent domains:
+1. Engineering (2) — Software Architect, Security Engineer
+2. Marketing (1) — SEO Specialist
+3. Sales (4) — Discovery Coach, Outbound Strategist, Proposal Strategist, Sales Engineer
+4. Support (1) — Executive Summary
+
+Pick domains or name specific agents:
+
+User: security + seo
+
+Claude:
+Selected: Security Engineer + SEO Specialist
+What should they work on?
+
+User: Review my Next.js e-commerce site before launch
+
+[Both agents spawn in parallel, each applying their specialty to the codebase]
+
+Claude:
+## Security Engineer Findings
+- [findings...]
+
+## SEO Specialist Findings
+- [findings...]
+
+## Synthesis
+Both agents agree on: [...]
+Tension: Security recommends CSP that blocks inline styles, SEO needs inline schema markup. Resolution: [...]
+Next steps: [...]
+```

package/skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## Overview
+
+Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
+
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Always:**
+- New features
+- Bug fixes
+- Refactoring
+- Behavior changes
+
+**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+- Throwaway prototypes
+- Generated code
+- Configuration files
+
+Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the 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
+
+Implement fresh from tests. Period.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor
+
+```dot
+digraph tdd_cycle {
+    rankdir=LR;
+    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
+    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
+    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
+    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
+    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
+
+    red -> verify_red;
+    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
+    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
+    green -> verify_green;
+    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
+    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
+    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
+    verify_green -> next;
+    next -> red;
+}
+```
+
+### RED - Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
+  let attempts = 0;
+  const operation = () => {
+    attempts++;
+    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
+    return 'success';
+  };
+
+  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
+
+  expect(result).toBe('success');
+  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
+});
+```
+Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+test('retry works', async () => {
+  const mock = jest.fn()
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
+    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
+  await retryOperation(mock);
+  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
+});
+```
+Vague name, tests mock not code
+</Bad>
+
+**Requirements:**
+- One behavior
+- Clear name
+- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
+
+### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test fails (not errors)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
+
+**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN - Minimal Code
+
+Write simplest code to pass the test.
+
+<Good>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
+  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+    try {
+      return await fn();
+    } catch (e) {
+      if (i === 2) throw e;
+    }
+  }
+  throw new Error('unreachable');
+}
+```
+Just enough to pass
+</Good>
+
+<Bad>
+```typescript
+async function retryOperation<T>(
+  fn: () => Promise<T>,
+  options?: {
+    maxRetries?: number;
+    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
+    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
+  }
+): Promise<T> {
+  // YAGNI
+}
+```
+Over-engineered
+</Bad>
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+```bash
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
+
+### REFACTOR - Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+
+Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next feature.
+
+## Good Tests
+
+| Quality | Good | Bad |
+|---------|------|-----|
+| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
+
+## Why Order Matters
+
+**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
+
+Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+- Might test wrong thing
+- Might test implementation, not behavior
+- Might miss edge cases you forgot
+- You never saw it catch the bug
+
+Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
+
+**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
+
+Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
+- No record of what you tested
+- Can't re-run when code changes
+- Easy to forget cases under pressure
+- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
+
+Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
+
+**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
+
+Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
+- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
+- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
+
+The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
+
+**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
+
+TDD IS pragmatic:
+- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
+- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
+- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
+- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
+
+"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
+
+**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
+
+No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
+
+Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
+
+Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
+
+30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
+| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
+| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
+| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
+- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Example: Bug Fix
+
+**Bug:** Empty email accepted
+
+**RED**
+```typescript
+test('rejects empty email', async () => {
+  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
+  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
+});
+```
+
+**Verify RED**
+```bash
+$ npm test
+FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
+```
+
+**GREEN**
+```typescript
+function submitForm(data: FormData) {
+  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
+    return { error: 'Email required' };
+  }
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+**Verify GREEN**
+```bash
+$ npm test
+PASS
+```
+
+**REFACTOR**
+Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+
+- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
+- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
+- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
+- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
+
+Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---------|----------|
+| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
+| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
+| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
+| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
+
+## Debugging Integration
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
+- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
+- Adding test-only methods to production classes
+- Mocking without understanding dependencies
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without your human partner's permission.