jorgex-stack 1.0.1 → 1.0.3

package/stack/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md

@@ -1,117 +1,117 @@
----
-name: diagnose
-description: Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, or describes a performance regression.
----
-
-# Diagnose
-
-A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
-
-When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
-
-## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
-
-**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug, you will find the cause — bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume that signal. 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.
-
-### Iterate on the loop itself
-
-Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
-
-- 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 loop is 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 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.
-
-Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in.
-
-## Phase 2 — Reproduce
-
-Run the loop. Watch the bug appear.
-
-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.
-
-Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
-
-## 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 + post-mortem
-
-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
-
-**Then ask: what would have prevented this bug?** If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to the `/improve-codebase-architecture` skill with the specifics. Make the recommendation **after** the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started.
+---
+name: diagnose
+description: Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, or describes a performance regression.
+---
+
+# Diagnose
+
+A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
+
+When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
+
+**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug, you will find the cause — bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume that signal. 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.
+
+### Iterate on the loop itself
+
+Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
+
+- 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 loop is 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 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.
+
+Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in.
+
+## Phase 2 — Reproduce
+
+Run the loop. Watch the bug appear.
+
+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.
+
+Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
+
+## 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 + post-mortem
+
+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
+
+**Then ask: what would have prevented this bug?** If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to the `/improve-codebase-architecture` skill with the specifics. Make the recommendation **after** the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started.

package/stack/skills/diagnose/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh

@@ -1,41 +1,41 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Human-in-the-loop reproduction loop.
-# Copy this file, edit the steps below, and run it.
-# The agent runs the script; the user follows prompts in their terminal.
-#
-# Usage:
-#   bash hitl-loop.template.sh
-#
-# Two helpers:
-#   step "<instruction>"          → show instruction, wait for Enter
-#   capture VAR "<question>"      → show question, read response into VAR
-#
-# At the end, captured values are printed as KEY=VALUE for the agent to parse.
-
-set -euo pipefail
-
-step() {
-  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$1"
-  read -r -p "    [Enter when done] " _
-}
-
-capture() {
-  local var="$1" question="$2" answer
-  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$question"
-  read -r -p "    > " answer
-  printf -v "$var" '%s' "$answer"
-}
-
-# --- edit below ---------------------------------------------------------
-
-step "Open the app at http://localhost:3000 and sign in."
-
-capture ERRORED "Click the 'Export' button. Did it throw an error? (y/n)"
-
-capture ERROR_MSG "Paste the error message (or 'none'):"
-
-# --- edit above ---------------------------------------------------------
-
-printf '\n--- Captured ---\n'
-printf 'ERRORED=%s\n' "$ERRORED"
-printf 'ERROR_MSG=%s\n' "$ERROR_MSG"
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Human-in-the-loop reproduction loop.
+# Copy this file, edit the steps below, and run it.
+# The agent runs the script; the user follows prompts in their terminal.
+#
+# Usage:
+#   bash hitl-loop.template.sh
+#
+# Two helpers:
+#   step "<instruction>"          → show instruction, wait for Enter
+#   capture VAR "<question>"      → show question, read response into VAR
+#
+# At the end, captured values are printed as KEY=VALUE for the agent to parse.
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+step() {
+  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$1"
+  read -r -p "    [Enter when done] " _
+}
+
+capture() {
+  local var="$1" question="$2" answer
+  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$question"
+  read -r -p "    > " answer
+  printf -v "$var" '%s' "$answer"
+}
+
+# --- edit below ---------------------------------------------------------
+
+step "Open the app at http://localhost:3000 and sign in."
+
+capture ERRORED "Click the 'Export' button. Did it throw an error? (y/n)"
+
+capture ERROR_MSG "Paste the error message (or 'none'):"
+
+# --- edit above ---------------------------------------------------------
+
+printf '\n--- Captured ---\n'
+printf 'ERRORED=%s\n' "$ERRORED"
+printf 'ERROR_MSG=%s\n' "$ERROR_MSG"

package/stack/skills/find-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -1,133 +1,133 @@
----
-name: find-skills
-description: Helps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skill should be used when the user is looking for functionality that might exist as an installable skill.
----
-
-# Find Skills
-
-This skill helps you discover and install skills from the open agent skills ecosystem.
-
-## When to Use This Skill
-
-Use this skill when the user:
-
-- Asks "how do I do X" where X might be a common task with an existing skill
-- Says "find a skill for X" or "is there a skill for X"
-- Asks "can you do X" where X is a specialized capability
-- Expresses interest in extending agent capabilities
-- Wants to search for tools, templates, or workflows
-- Mentions they wish they had help with a specific domain (design, testing, deployment, etc.)
-
-## What is the Skills CLI?
-
-The Skills CLI (`npx skills`) is the package manager for the open agent skills ecosystem. Skills are modular packages that extend agent capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, and tools.
-
-**Key commands:**
-
-- `npx skills find [query]` - Search for skills interactively or by keyword
-- `npx skills add <package>` - Install a skill from GitHub or other sources
-- `npx skills check` - Check for skill updates
-- `npx skills update` - Update all installed skills
-
-**Browse skills at:** https://skills.sh/
-
-## How to Help Users Find Skills
-
-### Step 1: Understand What They Need
-
-When a user asks for help with something, identify:
-
-1. The domain (e.g., React, testing, design, deployment)
-2. The specific task (e.g., writing tests, creating animations, reviewing PRs)
-3. Whether this is a common enough task that a skill likely exists
-
-### Step 2: Search for Skills
-
-Run the find command with a relevant query:
-
-```bash
-npx skills find [query]
-```
-
-For example:
-
-- User asks "how do I make my React app faster?" → `npx skills find react performance`
-- User asks "can you help me with PR reviews?" → `npx skills find pr review`
-- User asks "I need to create a changelog" → `npx skills find changelog`
-
-The command will return results like:
-
-```
-Install with npx skills add <owner/repo@skill>
-
-vercel-labs/agent-skills@vercel-react-best-practices
-└ https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/vercel-react-best-practices
-```
-
-### Step 3: Present Options to the User
-
-When you find relevant skills, present them to the user with:
-
-1. The skill name and what it does
-2. The install command they can run
-3. A link to learn more at skills.sh
-
-Example response:
-
-```
-I found a skill that might help! The "vercel-react-best-practices" skill provides
-React and Next.js performance optimization guidelines from Vercel Engineering.
-
-To install it:
-npx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@vercel-react-best-practices
-
-Learn more: https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/vercel-react-best-practices
-```
-
-### Step 4: Offer to Install
-
-If the user wants to proceed, you can install the skill for them:
-
-```bash
-npx skills add <owner/repo@skill> -g -y
-```
-
-The `-g` flag installs globally (user-level) and `-y` skips confirmation prompts.
-
-## Common Skill Categories
-
-When searching, consider these common categories:
-
-| Category        | Example Queries                          |
-| --------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
-| Web Development | react, nextjs, typescript, css, tailwind |
-| Testing         | testing, jest, playwright, e2e           |
-| DevOps          | deploy, docker, kubernetes, ci-cd        |
-| Documentation   | docs, readme, changelog, api-docs        |
-| Code Quality    | review, lint, refactor, best-practices   |
-| Design          | ui, ux, design-system, accessibility     |
-| Productivity    | workflow, automation, git                |
-
-## Tips for Effective Searches
-
-1. **Use specific keywords**: "react testing" is better than just "testing"
-2. **Try alternative terms**: If "deploy" doesn't work, try "deployment" or "ci-cd"
-3. **Check popular sources**: Many skills come from `vercel-labs/agent-skills` or `ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills`
-
-## When No Skills Are Found
-
-If no relevant skills exist:
-
-1. Acknowledge that no existing skill was found
-2. Offer to help with the task directly using your general capabilities
-3. Suggest the user could create their own skill with `npx skills init`
-
-Example:
-
-```
-I searched for skills related to "xyz" but didn't find any matches.
-I can still help you with this task directly! Would you like me to proceed?
-
-If this is something you do often, you could create your own skill:
-npx skills init my-xyz-skill
-```
+---
+name: find-skills
+description: Helps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skill should be used when the user is looking for functionality that might exist as an installable skill.
+---
+
+# Find Skills
+
+This skill helps you discover and install skills from the open agent skills ecosystem.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Use this skill when the user:
+
+- Asks "how do I do X" where X might be a common task with an existing skill
+- Says "find a skill for X" or "is there a skill for X"
+- Asks "can you do X" where X is a specialized capability
+- Expresses interest in extending agent capabilities
+- Wants to search for tools, templates, or workflows
+- Mentions they wish they had help with a specific domain (design, testing, deployment, etc.)
+
+## What is the Skills CLI?
+
+The Skills CLI (`npx skills`) is the package manager for the open agent skills ecosystem. Skills are modular packages that extend agent capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, and tools.
+
+**Key commands:**
+
+- `npx skills find [query]` - Search for skills interactively or by keyword
+- `npx skills add <package>` - Install a skill from GitHub or other sources
+- `npx skills check` - Check for skill updates
+- `npx skills update` - Update all installed skills
+
+**Browse skills at:** https://skills.sh/
+
+## How to Help Users Find Skills
+
+### Step 1: Understand What They Need
+
+When a user asks for help with something, identify:
+
+1. The domain (e.g., React, testing, design, deployment)
+2. The specific task (e.g., writing tests, creating animations, reviewing PRs)
+3. Whether this is a common enough task that a skill likely exists
+
+### Step 2: Search for Skills
+
+Run the find command with a relevant query:
+
+```bash
+npx skills find [query]
+```
+
+For example:
+
+- User asks "how do I make my React app faster?" → `npx skills find react performance`
+- User asks "can you help me with PR reviews?" → `npx skills find pr review`
+- User asks "I need to create a changelog" → `npx skills find changelog`
+
+The command will return results like:
+
+```
+Install with npx skills add <owner/repo@skill>
+
+vercel-labs/agent-skills@vercel-react-best-practices
+└ https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/vercel-react-best-practices
+```
+
+### Step 3: Present Options to the User
+
+When you find relevant skills, present them to the user with:
+
+1. The skill name and what it does
+2. The install command they can run
+3. A link to learn more at skills.sh
+
+Example response:
+
+```
+I found a skill that might help! The "vercel-react-best-practices" skill provides
+React and Next.js performance optimization guidelines from Vercel Engineering.
+
+To install it:
+npx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@vercel-react-best-practices
+
+Learn more: https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/vercel-react-best-practices
+```
+
+### Step 4: Offer to Install
+
+If the user wants to proceed, you can install the skill for them:
+
+```bash
+npx skills add <owner/repo@skill> -g -y
+```
+
+The `-g` flag installs globally (user-level) and `-y` skips confirmation prompts.
+
+## Common Skill Categories
+
+When searching, consider these common categories:
+
+| Category        | Example Queries                          |
+| --------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
+| Web Development | react, nextjs, typescript, css, tailwind |
+| Testing         | testing, jest, playwright, e2e           |
+| DevOps          | deploy, docker, kubernetes, ci-cd        |
+| Documentation   | docs, readme, changelog, api-docs        |
+| Code Quality    | review, lint, refactor, best-practices   |
+| Design          | ui, ux, design-system, accessibility     |
+| Productivity    | workflow, automation, git                |
+
+## Tips for Effective Searches
+
+1. **Use specific keywords**: "react testing" is better than just "testing"
+2. **Try alternative terms**: If "deploy" doesn't work, try "deployment" or "ci-cd"
+3. **Check popular sources**: Many skills come from `vercel-labs/agent-skills` or `ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills`
+
+## When No Skills Are Found
+
+If no relevant skills exist:
+
+1. Acknowledge that no existing skill was found
+2. Offer to help with the task directly using your general capabilities
+3. Suggest the user could create their own skill with `npx skills init`
+
+Example:
+
+```
+I searched for skills related to "xyz" but didn't find any matches.
+I can still help you with this task directly! Would you like me to proceed?
+
+If this is something you do often, you could create your own skill:
+npx skills init my-xyz-skill
+```

package/stack/skills/lean-code/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: lean-code
+description: Lean / anti-overengineering skill. Use when deciding whether code should exist, when to prefer stdlib or native APIs, and when to simplify recently changed code without changing behavior.
+---
+
+# Lean Code
+
+Use the smallest change that genuinely solves the problem.
+
+## The ladder
+
+Work top-down. Stop as soon as a step solves it:
+
+1. **Do nothing / delete it** if the need is speculative or nothing depends on the code.
+2. **Reuse existing project code** if a helper, component, command or module already solves the same need.
+3. **Use stdlib first** before adding a package or custom helper.
+4. **Use native/platform APIs** before wrapping them in new abstractions.
+5. **Use an already-installed dependency** when it safely covers the case.
+6. **Write the smallest obvious code** only when the previous steps do not fit.
+
+## Questions to ask
+
+- Does this need new code at all?
+- Is there already a project helper or pattern that does it?
+- Can stdlib or the platform do it directly?
+- Can an existing dependency already cover this safely without adding a new one?
+- Can the same result be expressed with one clear step instead of a new layer?
+
+## Guardrails
+
+Lean code does **not** mean weaker code.
+
+Keep explicit code when the change touches:
+
+- security or permissions
+- validation or sanitisation
+- accessibility
+- data-loss or persistence boundaries
+- public contracts, types, schemas, or APIs
+- tests or regression seams
+
+If simplification weakens any of those, stop.
+
+Do not add a new dependency unless the task explicitly requires it or the project already has approval for that dependency.
+
+## How to use it
+
+### Implementation
+
+Before adding a new helper, wrapper, abstraction, or dependency, run the ladder again.
+Prefer the narrowest change that solves the real need.
+
+### Review / simplification
+
+Use it as a bloat filter: delete, stdlib, native/platform, reuse, or shrink.
+If the code is already minimal and clear, leave it alone.
+
+### Audit
+
+Rank findings as:
+
+- delete
+- stdlib
+- native/platform
+- reuse
+- yagni
+- shrink
+
+Do not propose rewrites that only move complexity around.