mindforge-cc 11.5.1 → 11.6.0

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

@@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
+---
+name: test-driven-development
+description: "TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code."
+version: 1.1.0
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+
+## Overview
+
+Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
+
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Always:**
+- New features
+- Bug fixes
+- Refactoring
+- Behavior changes
+
+**Exceptions (ask the user first):**
+- Throwaway prototypes
+- Generated code
+- Configuration files
+
+Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
+```
+
+Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+
+Implement fresh from tests. Period.
+
+## Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
+
+### RED — Write Failing Test
+
+Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
+
+**Good test:**
+```python
+def test_retries_failed_operations_3_times():
+    attempts = 0
+    def operation():
+        nonlocal attempts
+        attempts += 1
+        if attempts < 3:
+            raise Exception('fail')
+        return 'success'
+
+    result = retry_operation(operation)
+
+    assert result == 'success'
+    assert attempts == 3
+```
+Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing.
+
+**Bad test:**
+```python
+def test_retry_works():
+    mock = MagicMock()
+    mock.side_effect = [Exception(), Exception(), 'success']
+    result = retry_operation(mock)
+    assert result == 'success'  # What about retry count? Timing?
+```
+Vague name, tests mock not real code.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- One behavior per test
+- Clear descriptive name ("and" in name? Split it)
+- Real code, not mocks (unless truly unavoidable)
+- Name describes behavior, not implementation
+
+### Verify RED — Watch It Fail
+
+**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
+
+```bash
+# Use terminal tool to run the specific test
+pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test fails (not errors from typos)
+- Failure message is expected
+- Fails because the feature is missing
+
+**Test passes immediately?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix the test.
+
+**Test errors?** Fix the error, re-run until it fails correctly.
+
+### GREEN — Minimal Code
+
+Write the simplest code to pass the test. Nothing more.
+
+**Good:**
+```python
+def add(a, b):
+    return a + b  # Nothing extra
+```
+
+**Bad:**
+```python
+def add(a, b):
+    result = a + b
+    logging.info(f"Adding {a} + {b} = {result}")  # Extra!
+    return result
+```
+
+Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
+
+**Cheating is OK in GREEN:**
+- Hardcode return values
+- Copy-paste
+- Duplicate code
+- Skip edge cases
+
+We'll fix it in REFACTOR.
+
+### Verify GREEN — Watch It Pass
+
+**MANDATORY.**
+
+```bash
+# Run the specific test
+pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_specific_behavior -v
+
+# Then run ALL tests to check for regressions
+pytest tests/ -q
+```
+
+Confirm:
+- Test passes
+- Other tests still pass
+- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+
+**Test fails?** Fix the code, not the test.
+
+**Other tests fail?** Fix regressions now.
+
+### REFACTOR — Clean Up
+
+After green only:
+- Remove duplication
+- Improve names
+- Extract helpers
+- Simplify expressions
+
+Keep tests green throughout. Don't add behavior.
+
+**If tests fail during refactor:** Undo immediately. Take smaller steps.
+
+### Repeat
+
+Next failing test for next behavior. One cycle at a time.
+
+## Why Order Matters
+
+**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
+
+Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+- Might test the wrong thing
+- Might test implementation, not behavior
+- Might miss edge cases you forgot
+- You never saw it catch the bug
+
+Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
+
+**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
+
+Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
+- No record of what you tested
+- Can't re-run when code changes
+- Easy to forget cases under pressure
+- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
+
+Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
+
+**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
+
+Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
+- Delete and rewrite with TDD (high confidence)
+- Keep it and add tests after (low confidence, likely bugs)
+
+The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust.
+
+**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
+
+TDD IS pragmatic:
+- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
+- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
+- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
+- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
+
+"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
+
+**"Tests after achieve the same goals — it's spirit not ritual"**
+
+No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
+
+Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
+| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to the test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
+| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
+| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for the code you touch. |
+
+## Red Flags — STOP and Start Over
+
+If you catch yourself doing any of these, delete the code and restart with TDD:
+
+- Code before test
+- Test after implementation
+- Test passes immediately on first run
+- Can't explain why test failed
+- Tests added "later"
+- Rationalizing "just this once"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
+- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking work complete:
+
+- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
+- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
+- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
+- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
+- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
+- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
+
+Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
+
+## When Stuck
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---------|----------|
+| Don't know how to test | Write the wished-for API. Write the assertion first. Ask the user. |
+| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify the interface. |
+| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
+| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify the design. |
+
+## 
+
+### Running Tests
+
+Use the `terminal` tool to run tests at each step:
+
+```python
+# RED — verify failure
+terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
+
+# GREEN — verify pass
+terminal("pytest tests/test_feature.py::test_name -v")
+
+# Full suite — verify no regressions
+terminal("pytest tests/ -q")
+```
+
+### With delegate_task
+
+When dispatching subagents for implementation, enforce TDD in the goal:
+
+```python
+delegate_task(
+    goal="Implement [feature] using strict TDD",
+    context="""
+    Follow test-driven-development skill:
+    1. Write failing test FIRST
+    2. Run test to verify it fails
+    3. Write minimal code to pass
+    4. Run test to verify it passes
+    5. Refactor if needed
+    6. Commit
+
+    Project test command: pytest tests/ -q
+    Project structure: [describe relevant files]
+    """,
+    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
+)
+```
+
+### With systematic-debugging
+
+Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.
+
+Never fix bugs without a test.
+
+## Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior** — mocks should verify interactions, not replace the system under test
+- **Testing implementation details** — test behavior/results, not internal method calls
+- **Happy path only** — always test edge cases, errors, and boundaries
+- **Brittle tests** — tests should verify behavior, not structure; refactoring shouldn't break them
+
+## Final Rule
+
+```
+Production code → test exists and failed first
+Otherwise → not TDD
+```
+
+No exceptions without the user's explicit permission.

package/.agent/skills/video-orchestrator/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: kanban-video-orchestrator
+description: Plan, set up, and monitor a multi-agent video production pipeline backed by a Kanban pipeline. Use when the user wants to make ANY video — narrative film, product/marketing, music video, explainer, ASCII/terminal art, abstract/generative loop, comic, 3D, real-time/installation — and the work warrants decomposition into specialized profiles (writer, designer, animator, renderer, voice, editor, etc.) coordinated through a kanban board. Performs adaptive discovery to scope the brief, designs an appropriate team for the requested style, generates the setup script that creates agent profiles + initial kanban task, then helps monitor execution and intervene when tasks stall or fail. Routes scenes to whichever rendering / audio / design skill fits each beat (`ascii-video`, `manim-video`, `p5js`, `comfyui`, `touchdesigner-mcp`, `blender-mcp`, `pixel-art`, `baoyu-comic`, `claude-design`, `excalidraw`, `songsee`, `heartmula`, …) plus external APIs for TTS, image-gen, and image-to-video as needed.
+version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Kanban Video Orchestrator
+
+Wrap any video request — from a 15-second product teaser to a 5-minute narrative
+short to a music video to an ASCII loop — in a Kanban pipeline that
+decomposes the work to specialized agent profiles.
+
+This skill does **not** render anything itself. It is a meta-pipeline that:
+
+1. **Scopes** the request through targeted discovery
+2. **Designs** an appropriate team (which roles, which tools per role) based on the style
+3. **Generates** a setup script that creates agent profiles, project workspace, and the initial kanban task
+4. **Hands off** to the director profile, which decomposes via the kanban
+5. **Monitors** execution, helps intervene when tasks stall or fail
+
+The actual rendering happens inside the kanban once it's running, via whichever
+existing skills + tools fit the scenes — `ascii-video`, `manim-video`, `p5js`,
+`comfyui`, `touchdesigner-mcp`, `blender-mcp`, `songwriting-and-ai-music`,
+`heartmula`, external APIs, or plain Python with PIL + ffmpeg.
+
+## When NOT to use this skill
+
+- The video is one continuous procedural project that needs no specialists. Just write the code directly.
+- The user wants a quick one-shot conversion (e.g. "convert this mp4 to a GIF") — use ffmpeg directly.
+- The output is a static image, GIF, or audio-only artifact — use the matching specific skill (`ascii-art`, `gifs`, `meme-generation`, `songwriting-and-ai-music`).
+- The work fits a single existing skill cleanly (e.g. a pure ASCII video — just use `ascii-video`).
+
+## Workflow
+
+```
+DISCOVER  →  BRIEF  →  TEAM DESIGN  →  SETUP  →  EXECUTE  →  MONITOR
+```
+
+### Step 1 — Discover (ask the right questions)
+
+The discovery process is **adaptive**: ask only what is actually needed. Always
+start with three questions to identify the broad shape:
+
+- **What is the video?** (one-sentence brief)
+- **How long?** (5-30s teaser / 30-90s short / 90s-3min explainer / 3-10min film / longer)
+- **What aspect ratio + target platform?** (1:1 / 9:16 / 16:9; X, IG, YouTube, internal, etc.)
+
+From the answer, classify the style category. The style determines which
+follow-up questions to ask. **Do not ask all questions at once.** Ask 2-4 at a
+time, listen, then proceed. Make reasonable assumptions whenever the user
+implies an answer.
+
+For complete intake patterns and per-style question banks, see
+**[references/intake.md](references/intake.md)**.
+
+### Step 2 — Brief
+
+Once enough is known, produce a structured `brief.md` using the template in
+`assets/brief.md.tmpl`. Stages:
+
+1. **Concept** — the one-sentence pitch + emotional north star
+2. **Scope** — duration, aspect, platform, deadline
+3. **Style** — visual references, brand constraints, tone
+4. **Scenes** — beat-by-beat breakdown (durations, content, target tool)
+5. **Audio** — narration / music / SFX / silent (per scene if needed)
+6. **Deliverables** — file format, resolution, optional alternates (vertical cut, GIF, etc.)
+
+Show the brief to the user for confirmation before designing the team. **The
+brief is the contract** — every downstream task references it.
+
+### Step 3 — Team design
+
+Pick role archetypes from the library that fit this video. **Compose, don't
+clone.** Most videos need 4-7 profiles. The director is always present; the
+rest are picked by what the brief actually requires.
+
+For the role library and per-style team compositions, see
+**[references/role-archetypes.md](references/role-archetypes.md)**.
+
+For mapping role → which skills + toolsets it loads, see
+**[references/tool-matrix.md](references/tool-matrix.md)**.
+
+### Step 4 — Setup
+
+Generate a setup script (`setup.sh`) and run it. The script:
+
+1. Creates the project workspace (`~/projects/video-pipeline/<slug>/`)
+2. Copies any provided assets into `taste/`, `audio/`, `assets/`
+3. Creates each agent profile via `agent profile create --clone`
+4. Writes per-profile `SOUL.md` (personality + role definition)
+5. Configures profile YAML (toolsets, always_load skills, cwd)
+6. Writes `brief.md`, `TEAM.md`, and `taste/` content
+7. Fires the initial `hermes kanban create` task assigned to the director
+
+Use `scripts/bootstrap_pipeline.py` to generate setup.sh from a brief +
+team-design JSON. See **[references/kanban-setup.md](references/kanban-setup.md)**
+for the setup script structure, profile config patterns, and the critical
+"shared workspace" rule.
+
+### Step 5 — Execute
+
+Run `setup.sh`. Then provide the user with monitoring commands:
+
+```bash
+hermes kanban watch --tenant <project-tenant>     # live events
+hermes kanban list  --tenant <project-tenant>     # board snapshot
+hermes dashboard                                   # visual board UI
+```
+
+The director profile takes over from here, decomposing the work and routing
+tasks to specialist profiles via the kanban toolset.
+
+### Step 6 — Monitor and intervene
+
+Stay engaged — the kanban runs autonomously but a stuck task or bad output
+needs human (or AI) judgment.
+
+Monitoring patterns: poll `kanban list` periodically, inspect any RUNNING task
+that exceeds its expected duration with `kanban show <id>`, and check
+heartbeats. When a worker's output fails review, the standard interventions are:
+
+1. Comment on the worker's task with specific feedback (`kanban_comment`)
+2. Create a re-run task with the original as parent
+3. Adjust the brief's scope and let the director re-decompose
+
+For diagnostic patterns, intervention recipes, and the "task is stuck"
+playbook, see **[references/monitoring.md](references/monitoring.md)**.
+
+## Reference: worked examples
+
+Six concrete pipelines covering very different video styles — narrative film,
+product/marketing, music video, math/algorithm explainer, ASCII video, real-time
+installation — showing how the same workflow yields very different teams and
+task graphs. See **[references/examples.md](references/examples.md)**.
+
+## Critical rules
+
+1. **Discovery before action.** Never start generating a brief or team without
+   asking at least the three baseline questions. A bad brief cascades through
+   the entire pipeline.
+
+2. **Match the team to the video.** Don't reuse the same 4-profile setup for
+   every job. A music video that doesn't have a beat-analysis profile will
+   misfire. A narrative film that doesn't have a writer profile will produce
+   incoherent scenes. See `references/role-archetypes.md`.
+
+3. **One workspace per project.** All profiles for a given video share the same
+   `dir:` workspace. Tasks pass artifacts via shared filesystem and structured
+   handoffs. **Every** `kanban_create` call passes
+   `workspace_kind="dir"` + `workspace_path="<absolute project path>"`.
+
+4. **Tenant every project.** Use a project-specific tenant
+   (`--tenant <project-slug>`). Keeps the dashboard scoped and prevents
+   cross-pollination with other ongoing kanbans.
+
+5. **Respect existing skills.** When a scene fits an existing skill, the
+   relevant renderer should load that skill via `--skill <name>` on its task
+   or `always_load` in its profile. Do not re-derive what a skill already
+   provides.
+
+6. **The director never executes.** Even with the full `kanban + terminal +
+   file` toolset, the director's `SOUL.md` rules forbid it from executing
+   work itself. It decomposes and routes only — every concrete task becomes
+   a `hermes kanban create` call to a specialist profile. The
+   `kanban-orchestrator` skill spells this out further.
+
+7. **Don't over-decompose.** A 30-second product video does NOT need 20 tasks.
+   Aim for the smallest task graph that still parallelizes well and exposes the
+   right human-review gates.
+
+8. **Verify API keys BEFORE firing.** External APIs (TTS, image-gen,
+   image-to-video) need keys in `${HERMES_HOME:-~/.hermes}/.env` or the user's secret store.
+   A worker that hits a missing-key error wastes a task slot. The setup
+   script's `check_key` helper aborts cleanly if a required key is missing.
+
+## File map
+
+```
+SKILL.md                            ← this file (workflow + rules)
+references/
+  intake.md                         ← discovery question banks per style
+  role-archetypes.md                ← role library (writer, designer, animator, …)
+  tool-matrix.md                    ← skill + toolset mapping per role
+  kanban-setup.md                   ← setup script structure & profile config
+  monitoring.md                     ← watch + intervene patterns
+  examples.md                       ← six worked pipelines
+assets/
+  brief.md.tmpl                     ← brief skeleton
+  setup.sh.tmpl                     ← setup script skeleton
+  soul.md.tmpl                      ← profile personality skeleton
+scripts/
+  bootstrap_pipeline.py             ← generate setup.sh from brief + team JSON
+  monitor.py                        ← polling + intervention helpers
+```