liteagents 3.0.0 → 3.5.0

package/packages/claude/commands/optimize.md

@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
----
-name: optimize
-description: Optimize performance [target]
-usage: /optimize <target-area>
-argument-hint: [file-or-function]
-allowed-tools: Read, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash(git diff:*), Bash(git log:*), Bash(git grep:*), Bash(rg:*)
----
-Analyze $ARGUMENTS for performance.
-
-## Examine
-- Time complexity (Big O)
-- Space complexity
-- I/O operations
-- Database queries (N+1?)
-- Unnecessary allocations
-
-## Output
-Per bottleneck:
-- **Location** (`file:line`)
-- **Cost** — what's slow and by how much. Concrete ("N+1 over ~1k rows on
-  every page load"), not vague ("could be faster").
-- **Optimization** — specific change.
-- **Expected improvement** — order-of-magnitude estimate.
-- **Trade-offs** — readability / memory / consistency cost.
-
-## After the analysis — verify, then fix
-
-Performance claims are easy to invent. Validate before acting.
-
-**Verify each bottleneck.** Re-read the cited `file:line` in context.
-Confirm the path is **actually hot** — look for at least one of:
-- a profile / benchmark / log line showing call frequency or duration,
-- the path sits on an obvious hot loop / per-request handler with real
-  volume,
-- the user provided evidence in the request.
-
-Without one of those, the claim is **uncertain — don't optimize on
-speculation.** Mark each finding **confirmed**, **false positive** (with
-reason), or **uncertain (needs profiling data)**.
-
-**Fix what's confirmed and unambiguous** — minimal change, one obvious
-shape, **no behavior change**, no API change. Apply directly. After
-each edit, re-read the changed region and confirm it still computes the
-same answer (perf optimizations that quietly change semantics are the
-worst kind).
-
-**Stop and ask** when (HITL gates — not all the time, only here):
-- the bottleneck is **uncertain** after grounding (no profile / log and
-  not obviously hot),
-- the fix has **multiple reasonable shapes** (cache vs precompute vs
-  batch vs paginate vs index) — present options with tradeoffs, not a
-  chosen path,
-- it changes **public API / response shape / DB schema / caller contract**,
-- it trades **correctness for speed** (lossy approximation, weaker
-  consistency, eventual-vs-strict) — even when "obviously" faster, or
-- it touches **concurrency primitives** (locks, atomics, ordering) —
-  easy to introduce races.
-
-Final report: **confirmed-and-fixed** · **confirmed-but-asking** (why +
-options) · **false-positive** (why) · **uncertain** (what profiling /
-data is needed to decide).

package/packages/claude/plugins/live-canvas-marketplace/plugins/live-canvas-channel/README.md

@@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
-# live-canvas-channel
-
-Claude Code channel plugin that bridges the Live Canvas browser overlay to a running Claude session. Each Save in the overlay becomes a `notifications/claude/channel` event — Claude reacts immediately without the user leaving the browser.
-
-## How it fits
-
-```
-┌──────────────────┐   POST /feedback    ┌───────────────────┐   MCP stdio  ┌──────────────┐
-│ Overlay in page  │ ──────────────────▶ │ live-canvas-      │ ──────────▶  │ Claude Code  │
-│ (any framework)  │ ◀── 200/ok ────────│ channel (node)    │              │ session      │
-└──────────────────┘                    └───────────────────┘              └──────────────┘
-```
-
-- HTTP listener: `127.0.0.1:8788` (override with `LIVE_CANVAS_PORT`)
-- `GET /health` — overlay probes this to confirm Live mode is reachable
-- `POST /feedback` — wire-compatible with the overlay's v1.0 schema
-- stdio: MCP protocol using `@modelcontextprotocol/sdk`
-
-## Install (local dev)
-
-```bash
-# Point Claude at this marketplace (one-time)
-claude /plugin marketplace add /absolute/path/to/live-canvas-marketplace
-
-# Install the plugin from it
-claude /plugin install live-canvas-channel@live-canvas-marketplace
-```
-
-The marketplace directory is the parent that contains `.claude-plugin/marketplace.json`.
-
-## Activate the channel on a session
-
-**Channels are in research preview and custom channels aren't on the approved allowlist.** `/plugin install` spawns the MCP server but does NOT auto-subscribe the session. To receive channel events, start a fresh Claude session with the development flag:
-
-```bash
-claude --dangerously-load-development-channels plugin:live-canvas-channel@live-canvas-marketplace
-```
-
-You'll see a confirmation prompt the first time. After confirming, channel events arrive in the assistant's context wrapped as `<channel source="live-canvas" ...>...</channel>` tags.
-
-Requirements: Claude Code v2.1.80+, claude.ai login (not API key or Console auth). On Team/Enterprise, channels must be explicitly enabled by the admin.
-
-## First run
-
-```bash
-cd /path/to/live-canvas-marketplace/plugins/live-canvas-channel
-npm install
-```
-
-This installs `@modelcontextprotocol/sdk`. After that, `/plugin install` can launch `server.js` on demand.
-
-## Debugging standalone
-
-The process expects stdio to be held open (Claude Code does this; the shell doesn't unless you trick it):
-
-```bash
-LIVE_CANVAS_PORT=8788 tail -f /dev/null | node server.js
-```
-
-Then in another terminal:
-
-```bash
-curl http://localhost:8788/health
-curl -X POST http://localhost:8788/feedback \
-  -H 'content-type: application/json' \
-  -d '{"version":"1.0","target":"PostCard","comment":{"id":"test","variant":"A","element":{"selector":"button","tagName":"button","textContent":"Like"},"text":"too small"}}'
-```
-
-## Protocol emitted
-
-| Method | When | Params |
-|---|---|---|
-| `notifications/claude/channel` | Valid feedback POST | `{ content: string, meta: Record<string,string> }` |
-
-**content** — human-readable text delivered to the active Claude turn:
-
-```
-[LIVE-CANVAS A · PostCard] too small
-  selector: `button`, button with "Like"
-  comment_id: test
-```
-
-**meta** — machine-structured fields the assistant can parse: `source`, `target`, `variant`, `selector`, `tagName`, `commentId`.
-
-## Failure modes
-
-- **Port in use** — another Claude session owns 8788. Logs to stderr and exits; overlay health probe fails; overlay falls back to JSON mode silently. The skill itself never silently degrades — it stops and asks the user.
-- **Invalid payload** — HTTP 400 with reason; no notification emitted.
-- **MCP transport not connected** — HTTP call still returns 200 (so the overlay shows "pushed"), but stderr logs the drop. Avoids false-negative toasts.

package/packages/claude/skills/debug-method/CREATION-LOG.md

@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
-# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
-
-## Source Material
-
-Extracted debugging framework from `/Users/jesse/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
-- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
-- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
-- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
-
-## Extraction Decisions
-
-**What to include:**
-- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
-- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
-- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
-- Concrete steps for each phase
-
-**What to leave out:**
-- Project-specific context
-- Repetitive variations of same rule
-- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
-
-## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
-
-1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
-2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
-3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
-4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
-5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
-6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
-
-## Bulletproofing Elements
-
-Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
-
-### Language Choices
-- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
-- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
-- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
-- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
-
-### Structural Defenses
-- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
-- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
-- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
-- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
-
-### Redundancy
-- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
-- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
-- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
-
-## Testing Approach
-
-Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
-
-### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
-- Simple bug, no time pressure
-- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
-
-### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
-- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
-- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
-
-### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
-- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
-- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
-
-### Test 4: Failed First Fix
-- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
-- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
-
-**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
-
-## Iterations
-
-### Initial Version
-- Complete 4-phase framework
-- Anti-patterns section
-- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
-
-### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
-- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
-- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
-- Prevents confusion between methodologies
-
-## Final Outcome
-
-Bulletproof skill that:
-- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
-- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
-- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
-- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
-- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
-- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
-- ✅ Ready for use
-
-## Key Insight
-
-**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Claude thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
-
-## Usage Example
-
-When encountering a bug:
-1. Load skill: skills/debug-method
-2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
-3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
-4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
-5. Complete all phases - root cause found
-
-**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
-**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
-
----
-
-*Created: 2025-10-03*
-*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*

package/packages/claude/skills/debug-method/SKILL.md

@@ -1,296 +0,0 @@
----
-name: debug-method
-description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes - four-phase framework (root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, implementation) that ensures understanding before attempting solutions
-usage: /debug-method <bug-or-error-description>
-auto_trigger: false
----
-
-# Debug Method
-
-## Overview
-
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
-**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
-
-**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
-```
-
-If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
-
-## When to Use
-
-Use for ANY technical issue:
-- Test failures
-- Bugs in production
-- Unexpected behavior
-- Performance problems
-- Build failures
-- Integration issues
-
-**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
-- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
-- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
-- You've already tried multiple fixes
-- Previous fix didn't work
-- You don't fully understand the issue
-
-**Don't skip when:**
-- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
-- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
-- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
-
-## The Four Phases
-
-You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
-
-### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
-
-**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
-
-1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
-   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
-   - They often contain the exact solution
-   - Read stack traces completely
-   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
-
-2. **Reproduce Consistently**
-   - Can you trigger it reliably?
-   - What are the exact steps?
-   - Does it happen every time?
-   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
-
-3. **Check Recent Changes**
-   - What changed that could cause this?
-   - Git diff, recent commits
-   - New dependencies, config changes
-   - Environmental differences
-
-4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
-
-   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
-
-   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
-   ```
-   For EACH component boundary:
-     - Log what data enters component
-     - Log what data exits component
-     - Verify environment/config propagation
-     - Check state at each layer
-
-   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
-   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
-   THEN investigate that specific component
-   ```
-
-   **Example (multi-layer system):**
-   ```bash
-   # Layer 1: Workflow
-   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
-   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
-
-   # Layer 2: Build script
-   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
-   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
-
-   # Layer 3: Signing script
-   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
-   security list-keychains
-   security find-identity -v
-
-   # Layer 4: Actual signing
-   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
-   ```
-
-   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
-
-5. **Trace Data Flow**
-
-   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
-
-   **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use trace-back for backward tracing technique
-
-   **Quick version:**
-   - Where does bad value originate?
-   - What called this with bad value?
-   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
-   - Fix at source, not at symptom
-
-### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
-
-**Find the pattern before fixing:**
-
-1. **Find Working Examples**
-   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
-   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
-
-2. **Compare Against References**
-   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
-   - Don't skim - read every line
-   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
-
-3. **Identify Differences**
-   - What's different between working and broken?
-   - List every difference, however small
-   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
-
-4. **Understand Dependencies**
-   - What other components does this need?
-   - What settings, config, environment?
-   - What assumptions does it make?
-
-### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
-
-**Scientific method:**
-
-1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
-   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
-   - Write it down
-   - Be specific, not vague
-
-2. **Test Minimally**
-   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
-   - One variable at a time
-   - Don't fix multiple things at once
-
-3. **Verify Before Continuing**
-   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
-   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
-   - DON'T add more fixes on top
-
-4. **When You Don't Know**
-   - Say "I don't understand X"
-   - Don't pretend to know
-   - Ask for help
-   - Research more
-
-### Phase 4: Implementation
-
-**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
-
-1. **Create Failing Test Case**
-   - Simplest possible reproduction
-   - Automated test if possible
-   - One-off test script if no framework
-   - MUST have before fixing
-   - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use tdd-flow for writing proper failing tests
-
-2. **Implement Single Fix**
-   - Address the root cause identified
-   - ONE change at a time
-   - No "while I'm here" improvements
-   - No bundled refactoring
-
-3. **Verify Fix**
-   - Test passes now?
-   - No other tests broken?
-   - Issue actually resolved?
-
-4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
-   - STOP
-   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
-   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
-   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
-   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
-
-5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
-
-   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
-   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
-   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
-   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
-
-   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
-   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
-   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
-   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
-
-   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
-
-   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
-
-## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
-
-If you catch yourself thinking:
-- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
-- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
-- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
-- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
-- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
-- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
-- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
-- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
-- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
-- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
-- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
-
-**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
-
-**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
-
-## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
-
-**Watch for these redirections:**
-- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
-- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
-- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
-- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
-- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
-
-**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
-| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
-| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
-| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
-| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
-| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
-| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
-| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
-|-------|---------------|------------------|
-| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
-| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
-| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
-| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
-
-## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
-
-If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
-
-1. You've completed the process
-2. Document what you investigated
-3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
-4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
-
-**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
-
-## Integration with Other Skills
-
-**This skill requires using:**
-- **trace-back** - REQUIRED when error is deep in call stack (see Phase 1, Step 5)
-- **tdd-flow** - REQUIRED for creating failing test case (see Phase 4, Step 1)
-
-**Complementary skills:**
-- **test-traps** (Anti-Pattern 6) - Replace arbitrary timeouts identified in Phase 2
-- **verify-done** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging sessions:
-- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
-- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
-- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
-- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

package/packages/claude/skills/debug-method/test-academic.md

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debug-method
-
-Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
-
-1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
-2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
-3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
-4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
-5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
-6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
-
-Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

package/packages/claude/skills/debug-method/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debug-method
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
-- Error rate: 100%
-- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
-- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
-
-Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
-
-You quickly check the logs and see:
-```
-PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
-```
-
-You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
-
-**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
-1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
-2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
-3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
-4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
-5. Then form hypothesis and test
-
-**But the quick fix:**
-- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
-- Deploy: 3 minutes
-- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
-- Every minute costs $15k
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
-- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
-- Another $525k lost during investigation
-- Manager will be furious
-- You look slow/incompetent
-
-**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
-- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
-- Stop the bleeding immediately
-- Investigate root cause after service restored
-- Save $450k vs Option A
-
-**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
-- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
-- If nothing obvious, add retry
-- Investigate properly after restore
-- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.