jorgex-stack 1.0.0

package/stack/skills/tdd/interface-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Interface Design 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

package/stack/skills/tdd/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

package/stack/skills/tdd/refactoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Refactor Candidates
+
+After TDD cycle, look for:
+
+- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
+- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
+- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
+- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
+- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
+- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

package/stack/skills/tdd/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```

package/stack/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+---
+name: to-issues
+description: Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues.
+---
+
+# To Issues
+
+Break a plan into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
+
+The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Gather context
+
+Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes an issue reference (issue number, URL, or path) as an argument, fetch it from the issue tracker and read its full body and comments.
+
+### 2. Explore the codebase (optional)
+
+If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+### 3. Draft vertical slices
+
+Break the plan into **tracer bullet** issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
+
+Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible.
+
+<vertical-slice-rules>
+- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests)
+- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
+- Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones
+</vertical-slice-rules>
+
+### 4. Quiz the user
+
+Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show:
+
+- **Title**: short descriptive name
+- **Type**: HITL / AFK
+- **Blocked by**: which other slices (if any) must complete first
+- **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them)
+
+Ask the user:
+
+- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
+- Are the dependency relationships correct?
+- Should any slices be merged or split further?
+- Are the correct slices marked as HITL and AFK?
+
+Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
+
+### 5. Publish the issues to the issue tracker
+
+For each approved slice, publish a new issue to the issue tracker. Use the issue body template below. These issues are considered ready for AFK agents, so publish them with the correct triage label unless instructed otherwise.
+
+Publish issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers in the "Blocked by" field.
+
+<issue-template>
+## Parent
+
+A reference to the parent issue on the issue tracker (if the source was an existing issue, otherwise omit this section).
+
+## What to build
+
+A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.
+
+Avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it here and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- [ ] Criterion 1
+- [ ] Criterion 2
+- [ ] Criterion 3
+
+## Blocked by
+
+- A reference to the blocking ticket (if any)
+
+Or "None - can start immediately" if no blockers.
+
+</issue-template>
+
+Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.

package/stack/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+name: to-prd
+description: Turn the current conversation context into a PRD at work/{name}/PRD.md (work-lifecycle flow). Use when user wants to create a PRD from the current context.
+---
+
+This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a PRD. Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the PRD, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can.
+
+Check with the user that these seams match their expectations.
+
+3. Write the PRD using the template below to `work/{name}/PRD.md`, where `{name}` is the work's canonical kebab-case name (see the `work-lifecycle` skill) — the human reviews it there. Exception: if the project manages its work through an issue tracker and the user wants the PRD there, publish it to the tracker instead and apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label — no need for additional triage.
+
+<prd-template>
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.
+
+## Solution
+
+The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.
+
+## User Stories
+
+A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:
+
+1. As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>
+
+<user-story-example>
+1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending
+</user-story-example>
+
+This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.
+
+## Implementation Decisions
+
+A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
+
+- The modules that will be built/modified
+- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
+- Technical clarifications from the developer
+- Architectural decisions
+- Schema changes
+- API contracts
+- Specific interactions
+
+Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
+
+Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
+
+## Testing Decisions
+
+A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
+
+- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
+- Which modules will be tested
+- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)
+
+## Out of Scope
+
+A description of the things that are out of scope for this PRD.
+
+## Further Notes
+
+Any further notes about the feature.
+
+</prd-template>

package/stack/skills/work-lifecycle/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: work-lifecycle
+description: Single source for how a piece of work is tracked and advances — PRD and plan as files in work/{name}/ while in progress; task specs, phase outcomes and history in Engram memory. Use when starting, tracking, resuming or closing a piece of work, or when deciding where a PRD, plan, task or backlog item should live.
+---
+
+# Work Lifecycle
+
+One rule kills duplication: **every piece of information has exactly ONE home**. Files are for what a human reviews; memory is for what subagents consume and for history. Nothing is ever stored in two places.
+
+## Identity
+
+Every piece of work gets a **canonical kebab-case name** when it starts (e.g. `checkout-refactor`), shared with the branch if applicable. The name stays the same across its whole life — it is the key to everything else.
+
+## Where everything lives
+
+| Piece | Single home | Why there |
+|---|---|---|
+| PRD | `work/{name}/PRD.md` | Written once, reviewed by the human |
+| Plan (goal, approach, task board) | `work/{name}/plan.md` | The status board: humans glance at it; statuses flip with surgical edits |
+| Full spec of each atomic task | Engram `work/{name}/task/{NN}` | Only subagents consume it; visible from any worktree |
+| Phase outcomes, decisions, findings | Engram `work/{name}/{phase}` | History — must survive the folder and compactions |
+| Final outcome | Engram `work/{name}/done` | Permanent record of what shipped |
+| Pending / backlog items | Engram `work/backlog` — ONE key per project | All pending ideas in a single upserted list |
+
+`work/` is **scaffolding, not product**: add it to the project's `.gitignore`. It contains ONLY work in progress — an empty `work/` means nothing is half-done. No `1-TODOs/`, no `3-finalized/`, no phase subfolders.
+
+## Starting
+
+1. Pick the canonical name and create `work/{name}/`. If the item came from the backlog, remove it from `work/backlog` in the same step.
+2. Produce the PRD with the `to-prd` skill → `work/{name}/PRD.md`. The human reviews it there.
+3. Write `work/{name}/plan.md` (structure in `references/plan-template.md`): goal, chosen approach, success criteria, and the task table — number, title, one-line description, status, wave, deps.
+4. Save the full spec of each atomic task to memory: one `mem_save` per task with topic_key `work/{name}/task/{NN}` (content structure in `references/plan-template.md`).
+
+## Executing
+
+- Execution happens inside a git worktree created for the work (branch = canonical name); the user's main checkout stays untouched until merge.
+- Delegation handoff: the subagent receives its **topic_key + task title**, never the task content inline. It retrieves the spec itself (`mem_search` → `mem_get_observation`).
+- The subagent saves its phase outcome under the topic_key the orchestrator gave it (`work/{name}/{phase}`) BEFORE its final report.
+- Task status lives ONLY in the plan.md table: flip it (⬜ → ✅) with a surgical edit when the task closes. Do not mirror statuses into memory, and do not re-read the whole plan after every task — it is already in context; re-read it on resume.
+
+## HTML review view (on demand)
+
+When presenting the PRD or the plan for human review on non-trivial work, OFFER a disposable HTML view (e.g. side-by-side approach comparison for the PRD, task table + dependency graph for the plan). Rules:
+
+- Only generate it if the human says yes — never by default.
+- The markdown is the ONLY source of truth: requested changes are applied to `PRD.md`/`plan.md`, and the HTML is regenerated from the updated markdown if another review round is needed. The HTML is never edited as a document and never read by subagents.
+- It lives in `work/{name}/` (e.g. `plan.review.html`, `PRD.review.html`) and is DELETED as soon as its artifact is approved — before execution starts.
+
+## Pending work (backlog)
+
+All pending or future work of a project lives under the SINGLE topic_key `work/backlog` (upsert): one list, each item a short title + one-liner. Never one topic_key per idea, never a TODOs folder. When an item starts, it graduates: remove it from the backlog and create its `work/{name}/`. Review findings deliberately NOT applied also land here, one line each (what + why deferred).
+
+If the project manages work through an issue tracker, issues (`to-issues`) take this role instead — don't keep both.
+
+## Resuming
+
+1. Read `work/{name}/plan.md` — the board says what's done and what's pending.
+2. If detail is needed: `mem_search("work/{name}")` for the latest phase outcomes (or `mem_context` if recent).
+3. Continue from the first task without ✅.
+
+## Closing
+
+When the work is finalized (e.g. PR created and merged into its target branch):
+
+1. `mem_save` under `work/{name}/done`: outcome, what shipped, anything left pending.
+2. If the PRD has lasting documentation value, move it to where the project keeps docs (e.g. `docs/`); otherwise its key decisions already live in `done`.
+3. **Delete `work/{name}/`** and remove the work's worktree. Nothing to archive — git has the code, memory has the story.
+4. `mem_session_summary` covers the session as usual.
+
+## Rules
+
+- One piece of work = one canonical name, stable across its whole life.
+- Don't mix several distinct pieces of work under the same name/topic_key.
+- Same evolving phase → same topic_key (upsert). Different phases and different tasks must not overwrite each other.
+- Never persist the same artifact in two homes — no file + memory copies, no hybrid writes.
+
+## Legacy `work/` folders
+
+If a repo still has the old `work/1-TODOs / 2-inProgress / 3-finalized` structure: respect what exists, don't extend it. When you touch a piece of work living there, migrate it to this flow: pending ideas → one entry each in `work/backlog`; an in-progress folder → `work/{name}/` keeping only PRD.md and plan.md, its tasks to memory; finalized folders → one `mem_save` per piece worth keeping, then delete them with the user's OK.

package/stack/skills/work-lifecycle/references/plan-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+# Plan & Task Templates
+
+Templates for the two artifacts of a piece of work: `plan.md` (file — the status board) and the atomic tasks (Engram observations). `[name]` is the canonical kebab-case name shared by `work/[name]/`, the branch and every topic_key.
+
+---
+
+## `work/[name]/` contents
+
+```
+work/[name]/
+├── PRD.md      # decisions and design (written by the to-prd skill)
+└── plan.md     # master index + task status board
+```
+
+The full spec of each task is NOT a file: it lives in Engram, one observation per task with topic_key `work/[name]/task/[NN]` (the `[NN]` matches the `#` column of the plan table).
+
+---
+
+## plan.md — Template
+
+```markdown
+# [Readable Feature Name]
+
+**Canonical name**: `[name]`
+**Branch**: [branch name] | **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Status**: In progress
+
+## Goal
+
+[What is being built and why — 2-4 lines]
+
+## Chosen approach
+
+[Summary of the approved design — why this approach was chosen]
+
+### Discarded: [name]
+
+[Why it wasn't chosen]
+
+## Success criteria
+
+- [ ] [Verifiable behavior 1]
+- [ ] [Verifiable behavior 2]
+- [ ] Task-specific verification passes, if applicable
+
+## Tasks
+
+> Full spec of task NN → Engram topic_key `work/[name]/task/NN`.
+> Status lives ONLY in this table — update it with a surgical edit per task.
+
+| # | Task | One-liner | Status | Wave | Deps |
+|---|------|-----------|--------|------|------|
+| 01 | [descriptive name] | [one-line description] | ⬜ | 1 | — |
+| 02 | [descriptive name] | [one-line description] | ⬜ | 1 | — |
+| 03 | [descriptive name] | [one-line description] | ⬜ | 2 | 01 |
+| 04 | [descriptive name] | [one-line description] | ⬜ | 2 | 01, 02 |
+
+**Statuses**: ⬜ Pending → 🔴 RED → 🟢 GREEN → 🔍 Review → ✅ Done
+```
+
+---
+
+## Task observation — Template (`mem_save` per task)
+
+Each task observation is self-contained: a subagent retrieves it by topic_key and has all the context needed to work without asking back. Don't write unnecessary information or full code blocks unless needed. In the context section, write only what the subagent needs to understand it perfectly.
+
+`mem_save` fields:
+
+- **title**: `[name]/task/[NN] — [descriptive task name]`
+- **topic_key**: `work/[name]/task/[NN]`
+- **type**: `architecture`
+- **content**: the markdown below
+
+Status, wave and dependencies live in the plan.md table (single home) — do NOT repeat them here.
+
+```markdown
+# T[NN]: [Descriptive task name]
+
+## Intent
+
+[EXPLICIT: why we're doing this task. The problem it solves or the need it covers.]
+
+## Affected files
+
+> Only include files the agent of THIS task can modify.
+> If there are tests, translations or user docs, create a separate task for the right specialist.
+
+| File | Action | Why |
+|------|--------|-----|
+| `path/to/file` | CREATE | [concrete reason] |
+| `path/to/other` | MODIFY | [concrete reason] |
+
+## Out of scope / Delegate
+
+| Agent | Pending work | Required inputs |
+|-------|--------------|-----------------|
+| `[agent]` | [work that belongs to another scope] | [minimal inputs] |
+
+## Constraints
+
+[Technical constraints the subagent MUST respect. If none beyond project rules, say so explicitly.]
+
+## Context
+
+[Extracted from the analysts' output — only what's relevant for THIS task. Copy real code snippets, don't describe them. Indicate source file:line for each snippet.]
+
+### Current relevant state
+
+[Existing code being modified or extended — copy literally]
+
+### Pattern to follow
+
+[If there's an existing pattern in the codebase to replicate — copy literally with file:line]
+
+## Specification
+
+[What the code must do — exact behavior.]
+
+### Expected behavior
+
+- **Input**: [what it receives]
+- **Output**: [what it returns/produces]
+- **Side effects**: [queries, mutations, etc. if any]
+
+### Edge cases
+
+- [Edge case and how to handle it]
+
+### Business rules
+
+- [Rule]
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+[VERIFIABLE and SPECIFIC criteria — not generic. Each must be checkable manually or automatically.]
+
+- [ ] [Verifiable criterion 1]
+- [ ] [Verifiable criterion 2]
+- [ ] Task-specific verification passes, if applicable
+
+## Additional notes
+
+[Anything the subagent should know that doesn't fit above.]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Backlog entry — Template (`work/backlog`)
+
+ONE observation per project holds every pending idea (topic_key `work/backlog`, upserted). Each item is just:
+
+```markdown
+- **[short title]** — [one-line description of the idea and its value]
+```
+
+When an item starts, remove it from this list and create its `work/[name]/`.
+
+---
+
+## Task creation rules
+
+### Atomicity
+
+- **Max ~5 implementation steps** per task. If more → split into two tasks.
+
+### Structure
+
+- **Natural order**: data layer → generated types → services/hooks → components/UI.
+- **Numbering**: `01`, `02`, `03`... (two digits) — shared by the plan table row and the topic_key.
+
+### Context
+
+- Copy only the relevant info from the analysis, not the whole report.
+- **Copy code literally**, don't describe it.
+- Indicate source file and line for each copied snippet.
+
+### Acceptance criteria
+
+- **VERIFIABLE**: "the type includes X", not "the type is correct".
+- **SPECIFIC**: no copy-paste of generic criteria.
+- **COMPLETE**: cover happy path, edge cases and errors.
+
+### Constraints
+
+- Include the relevant project rules as constraints.
+- If there are no special constraints, say so explicitly.