liteagents 2.4.0

package/packages/ampcode/commands/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+---
+name: testing-anti-patterns
+description: Use when writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code - prevents testing mock behavior, production pollution with test-only methods, and mocking without understanding dependencies
+usage: /testing-anti-patterns <testing-scenario>
+auto_trigger: true
+---
+
+# Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+## Overview
+
+Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
+
+**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
+
+**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
+
+## The Iron Laws
+
+```
+1. NEVER test mock behavior
+2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
+3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);
+  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
+- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
+- Tells you nothing about real behavior
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
+  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+
+// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
+// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
+  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
+
+  IF testing mock existence:
+    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
+
+  Test real behavior instead
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
+class Session {
+  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
+    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
+    // ... cleanup
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => session.destroy());
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Production class polluted with test-only code
+- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
+- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
+- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
+// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
+
+// In test-utils/
+export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
+  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
+  if (workspace) {
+    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE adding any method to production class:
+  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
+
+  IF yes:
+    STOP - Don't add it
+    Put it in test utilities instead
+
+  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
+
+  IF no:
+    STOP - Wrong class for this method
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
+  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
+    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+  }));
+
+  await addServer(config);
+  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
+- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
+- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
+  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
+
+  await addServer(config);  // Config written
+  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
+});
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE mocking any method:
+  STOP - Don't mock yet
+
+  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
+  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
+  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
+
+  IF depends on side effects:
+    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
+    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
+    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
+
+  IF unsure what test depends on:
+    Run test with real implementation FIRST
+    Observe what actually needs to happen
+    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
+
+  Red flags:
+    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
+    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
+    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
+  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
+};
+
+// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
+- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
+- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
+- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
+
+**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
+  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
+  // All fields real API returns
+};
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE creating mock responses:
+  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
+
+  Actions:
+    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
+    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
+    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
+
+  Critical:
+    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
+    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
+
+  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
+
+**The violation:**
+```
+✅ Implementation complete
+❌ No tests written
+"Ready for testing"
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
+- TDD would have caught this
+- Can't claim complete without tests
+
+**The fix:**
+```
+TDD cycle:
+1. Write failing test
+2. Implement to pass
+3. Refactor
+4. THEN claim complete
+```
+
+## When Mocks Become Too Complex
+
+**Warning signs:**
+- Mock setup longer than test logic
+- Mocking everything to make test pass
+- Mocks missing methods real components have
+- Test breaks when mock changes
+
+**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
+
+**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
+
+## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
+
+**Why TDD helps:**
+1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
+2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
+3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
+4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
+
+**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
+|--------------|-----|
+| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
+| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
+| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
+| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
+| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
+| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
+- Methods only called in test files
+- Mock setup is >50% of test
+- Test fails when you remove mock
+- Can't explain why mock is needed
+- Mocking "just to be safe"
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
+
+If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
+
+Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.

package/packages/ampcode/commands/verification-before-completion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: verification-before-completion
+description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
+usage: /verification-before-completion <work-to-verify>
+auto_trigger: true
+---
+
+# Verification Before Completion
+
+## Auto-Trigger
+
+**APPLIES WHEN:**
+- About to say: done, fixed, complete, passing, success
+- About to commit, push, create PR
+- About to mark task [x]
+
+**APPLIES TO:** All agents, all invocation paths
+
+**NEVER SKIP:** Even for "obvious" tasks
+
+## Overview
+
+Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
+
+**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
+
+**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+```
+
+If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
+
+## The Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
+
+1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
+2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
+3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
+4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
+   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
+   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
+5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
+
+Skip any step = lying, not verifying
+```
+
+## Common Failures
+
+| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
+|-------|----------|----------------|
+| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
+| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
+| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
+| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
+| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
+| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
+| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
+
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
+- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
+- About to commit/push/PR without verification
+- Trusting agent success reports
+- Relying on partial verification
+- Thinking "just this once"
+- Tired and wanting work over
+- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
+
+## Rationalization Prevention
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
+| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
+| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
+| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
+| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
+| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
+| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
+| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
+
+## Key Patterns
+
+**Tests:**
+```
+✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
+❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
+```
+
+**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
+```
+✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
+❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
+```
+
+**Build:**
+```
+✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
+❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+```
+✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
+❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
+```
+
+**Agent delegation:**
+```
+✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
+❌ Trust agent report
+```
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+From 24 failure memories:
+- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
+- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
+- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
+- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
+- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
+
+## When To Apply
+
+**ALWAYS before:**
+- ANY variation of success/completion claims
+- ANY expression of satisfaction
+- ANY positive statement about work state
+- Committing, PR creation, task completion
+- Moving to next task
+- Delegating to agents
+
+**Rule applies to:**
+- Exact phrases
+- Paraphrases and synonyms
+- Implications of success
+- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**No shortcuts for verification.**
+
+Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
+
+This is non-negotiable.

package/packages/ampcode/settings.json

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+{
+  "amp.anthropic.thinking.enabled": true,
+  "amp.git.commit.ampThread.enabled": true,
+  "amp.git.commit.coauthor.enabled": true,
+  "amp.todos.enabled": true,
+  "amp.terminal.commands.nodeSpawn.loadProfile": "always",
+  "amp.tools.stopTimeout": 300,
+  "amp.updates.mode": "auto",
+  "amp.permissions": [],
+  "amp.tools.disable": [],
+  "amp.mcpServers": {},
+  "amp.mcpPermissions": []
+}

package/packages/ampcode/variants.json

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+{
+  "pro": {
+    "name": "Pro",
+    "description": "Complete installation with all agents and commands",
+    "agents": "*",
+    "commands": "*"
+  }
+}

package/packages/claude/CLAUDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Global Claude Code CLI
+
+Claude Code is a lightweight CLI tool that provides workflow automation commands.
+
+## Claude Code Subagents (Reference)
+
+These subagents are available when using Claude Code CLI. Droid can reference them but doesn't implement them directly.
+
+### Subagents (11 total)
+
+| ID | Title | When To Use |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1-create-prd | 1-Create PRD | Define Scope - use to clearly outline what needs to be built with a Product Requirement Document (PRD) |
+| 2-generate-tasks | 2-Generate Tasks | Detailed Planning - use to break down the PRD into a granular, actionable task list |
+| 3-process-task-list | 3-Process Task List | Iterative Implementation - use to guide the AI to tackle one task at a time, allowing you to review and approve each change |
+| code-developer | Full Stack Developer | Use for code implementation, debugging, refactoring, and development best practices |
+| context-builder | Context Initializer | Use to initialize project context for new/existing projects, discover and organize documentation, create CLAUDE.md and KNOWLEDGE_BASE.md for optimal token-efficient memory |
+| feature-planner | Product Manager | Use for creating epics and user stories, prioritization, backlog navigation, story refinement, and retrospectives |
+| market-researcher | Business Analyst | Use for market research, brainstorming, competitive analysis, project briefs, and initial project discovery |
+| orchestrator | Master Orchestrator | Use for workflow coordination, multi-agent tasks, role switching guidance, and when unsure which specialist to consult |
+| quality-assurance | Test Architect & Quality Advisor | Use for comprehensive test architecture review, quality gate decisions, and code improvement. Provides thorough analysis including requirements traceability, risk assessment, and test strategy. Advisory only - teams choose their quality bar |
+| system-architect | Architect | Use for system design, architecture documents, technology selection, API design, and infrastructure planning |
+| ui-designer | UX Expert | Use for UI/UX design, wireframes, prototypes, front-end specifications, and user experience optimization |
+
+### Skills (10 total)
+
+| ID | Description | Usage | Auto |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| brainstorming | Refines rough ideas into fully-formed designs through collaborative questioning | /brainstorming <session-type> <topic> | false |
+| code-review | Reviews implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding | /code-review <review-scope> <focus-areas> | false |
+| condition-based-waiting | Replaces arbitrary timeouts with condition polling to wait for actual state changes | /condition-based-waiting <condition-type> <timeout-specs> | false |
+| docs-builder | Create comprehensive project documentation with structured /docs hierarchy | /docs-builder | false |
+| root-cause-tracing | Systematically traces bugs backward through call stack to identify source | /root-cause-tracing <issue-description> | false |
+| skill-creator | Guide for creating effective skills and extending Claude capabilities | /skill-creator <skill-type> <skill-description> | false |
+| systematic-debugging | Four-phase debugging framework - investigate root cause before any fixes | /systematic-debugging <bug-or-error-description> | false |
+| test-driven-development | Write test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass | /test-driven-development <feature-or-behavior-to-test> | true |
+| testing-anti-patterns | Prevents testing mock behavior and production pollution with test-only methods | /testing-anti-patterns <testing-scenario> | true |
+| verification-before-completion | Requires running verification commands before making any success claims | /verification-before-completion <work-to-verify> | true |
+
+### Commands (10 total)
+
+| ID | Description | Usage |
+|---|---|---|
+| debug | Debug an issue systematically using structured investigation techniques | /debug <issue-description> |
+| explain | Explain code for someone new to the codebase | /explain <code-section> |
+| git-commit | Analyze changes and create intelligent git commits | /git-commit |
+| optimize | Analyze and optimize performance issues | /optimize <target-area> |
+| refactor | Refactor code while maintaining behavior and tests | /refactor <code-section> |
+| review | Comprehensive code review including quality, tests, and architecture | /review |
+| security | Security vulnerability scan and analysis | /security |
+| ship | Pre-deployment verification checklist | /ship |
+| stash | Save session context for compaction recovery or handoffs | /stash ["optional-name"] |
+| test-generate | Generate comprehensive test suites for existing code | /test-generate <code-section> |
+
+All resources are auto-discovered from frontmatter in their respective directories:
+- **Agents**: `./agents/*.md`
+- **Skills**: `./skills/*/SKILL.md`
+- **Commands**: `./commands/*.md`

package/packages/claude/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Claude Code Packages
+
+Claude Code AI development assistant packages optimized for conversational AI interactions.
+
+## Structure
+- `lite/` - Minimal setup with 3 core agents
+- `standard/` - Full agent set with 8 core skills  
+- `pro/` - Complete toolkit with 14 advanced skills
+
+## Content Source
+Existing content available in `../claude_temp_backup/` ready to be organized into variants.
+
+## Optimization Focus
+- Conversational AI patterns
+- Markdown formatting
+- Claude-specific response handling
+- Plugin integration
+
+## Next Steps
+1. Copy 3 core agents to `lite/`
+2. Copy all agents + 8 skills to `standard/`
+3. Copy all agents + 14 skills to `pro/`
+4. Customize for Claude-specific optimizations