mindforge-cc 2.0.0 → 2.1.1

package/docs/references/planning-config.md

@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+<planning_config>
+
+Configuration options for `.planning/` directory behavior.
+
+<config_schema>
+```json
+"planning": {
+  "commit_docs": true,
+  "search_gitignored": false
+},
+"git": {
+  "branching_strategy": "none",
+  "phase_branch_template": "mindforge/phase-{phase}-{slug}",
+  "milestone_branch_template": "mindforge/{milestone}-{slug}",
+  "quick_branch_template": null
+}
+```
+
+| Option | Default | Description |
+|--------|---------|-------------|
+| `commit_docs` | `true` | Whether to commit planning artifacts to git |
+| `search_gitignored` | `false` | Add `--no-ignore` to broad rg searches |
+| `git.branching_strategy` | `"none"` | Git branching approach: `"none"`, `"phase"`, or `"milestone"` |
+| `git.phase_branch_template` | `"mindforge/phase-{phase}-{slug}"` | Branch template for phase strategy |
+| `git.milestone_branch_template` | `"mindforge/{milestone}-{slug}"` | Branch template for milestone strategy |
+| `git.quick_branch_template` | `null` | Optional branch template for quick-task runs |
+</config_schema>
+
+<commit_docs_behavior>
+
+**When `commit_docs: true` (default):**
+- Planning files committed normally
+- SUMMARY.md, STATE.md, ROADMAP.md tracked in git
+- Full history of planning decisions preserved
+
+**When `commit_docs: false`:**
+- Skip all `git add`/`git commit` for `.planning/` files
+- User must add `.planning/` to `.gitignore`
+- Useful for: OSS contributions, client projects, keeping planning private
+
+**Using mindforge-tools.cjs (preferred):**
+
+```bash
+# Commit with automatic commit_docs + gitignore checks:
+node ".agent/mindforge/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" commit "docs: update state" --files .planning/STATE.md
+
+# Load config via state load (returns JSON):
+INIT=$(node ".agent/mindforge/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" state load)
+if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
+# commit_docs is available in the JSON output
+
+# Or use init commands which include commit_docs:
+INIT=$(node ".agent/mindforge/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" init execute-phase "1")
+if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
+# commit_docs is included in all init command outputs
+```
+
+**Auto-detection:** If `.planning/` is gitignored, `commit_docs` is automatically `false` regardless of config.json. This prevents git errors when users have `.planning/` in `.gitignore`.
+
+**Commit via CLI (handles checks automatically):**
+
+```bash
+node ".agent/mindforge/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" commit "docs: update state" --files .planning/STATE.md
+```
+
+The CLI checks `commit_docs` config and gitignore status internally — no manual conditionals needed.
+
+</commit_docs_behavior>
+
+<search_behavior>
+
+**When `search_gitignored: false` (default):**
+- Standard rg behavior (respects .gitignore)
+- Direct path searches work: `rg "pattern" .planning/` finds files
+- Broad searches skip gitignored: `rg "pattern"` skips `.planning/`
+
+**When `search_gitignored: true`:**
+- Add `--no-ignore` to broad rg searches that should include `.planning/`
+- Only needed when searching entire repo and expecting `.planning/` matches
+
+**Note:** Most MindForge operations use direct file reads or explicit paths, which work regardless of gitignore status.
+
+</search_behavior>
+
+<setup_uncommitted_mode>
+
+To use uncommitted mode:
+
+1. **Set config:**
+   ```json
+   "planning": {
+     "commit_docs": false,
+     "search_gitignored": true
+   }
+   ```
+
+2. **Add to .gitignore:**
+   ```
+   .planning/
+   ```
+
+3. **Existing tracked files:** If `.planning/` was previously tracked:
+   ```bash
+   git rm -r --cached .planning/
+   git commit -m "chore: stop tracking planning docs"
+   ```
+
+4. **Branch merges:** When using `branching_strategy: phase` or `milestone`, the `complete-milestone` workflow automatically strips `.planning/` files from staging before merge commits when `commit_docs: false`.
+
+</setup_uncommitted_mode>
+
+<branching_strategy_behavior>
+
+**Branching Strategies:**
+
+| Strategy | When branch created | Branch scope | Merge point |
+|----------|---------------------|--------------|-------------|
+| `none` | Never | N/A | N/A |
+| `phase` | At `execute-phase` start | Single phase | User merges after phase |
+| `milestone` | At first `execute-phase` of milestone | Entire milestone | At `complete-milestone` |
+
+**When `git.branching_strategy: "none"` (default):**
+- All work commits to current branch
+- Standard MindForge behavior
+
+**When `git.branching_strategy: "phase"`:**
+- `execute-phase` creates/switches to a branch before execution
+- Branch name from `phase_branch_template` (e.g., `mindforge/phase-03-authentication`)
+- All plan commits go to that branch
+- User merges branches manually after phase completion
+- `complete-milestone` offers to merge all phase branches
+
+**When `git.branching_strategy: "milestone"`:**
+- First `execute-phase` of milestone creates the milestone branch
+- Branch name from `milestone_branch_template` (e.g., `mindforge/v1.0-mvp`)
+- All phases in milestone commit to same branch
+- `complete-milestone` offers to merge milestone branch to main
+
+**Template variables:**
+
+| Variable | Available in | Description |
+|----------|--------------|-------------|
+| `{phase}` | phase_branch_template | Zero-padded phase number (e.g., "03") |
+| `{slug}` | Both | Lowercase, hyphenated name |
+| `{milestone}` | milestone_branch_template | Milestone version (e.g., "v1.0") |
+
+**Checking the config:**
+
+Use `init execute-phase` which returns all config as JSON:
+```bash
+INIT=$(node ".agent/mindforge/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" init execute-phase "1")
+if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
+# JSON output includes: branching_strategy, phase_branch_template, milestone_branch_template
+```
+
+Or use `state load` for the config values:
+```bash
+INIT=$(node ".agent/mindforge/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" state load)
+if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
+# Parse branching_strategy, phase_branch_template, milestone_branch_template from JSON
+```
+
+**Branch creation:**
+
+```bash
+# For phase strategy
+if [ "$BRANCHING_STRATEGY" = "phase" ]; then
+  PHASE_SLUG=$(echo "$PHASE_NAME" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | sed 's/[^a-z0-9]/-/g' | sed 's/--*/-/g' | sed 's/^-//;s/-$//')
+  BRANCH_NAME=$(echo "$PHASE_BRANCH_TEMPLATE" | sed "s/{phase}/$PADDED_PHASE/g" | sed "s/{slug}/$PHASE_SLUG/g")
+  git checkout -b "$BRANCH_NAME" 2>/dev/null || git checkout "$BRANCH_NAME"
+fi
+
+# For milestone strategy
+if [ "$BRANCHING_STRATEGY" = "milestone" ]; then
+  MILESTONE_SLUG=$(echo "$MILESTONE_NAME" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | sed 's/[^a-z0-9]/-/g' | sed 's/--*/-/g' | sed 's/^-//;s/-$//')
+  BRANCH_NAME=$(echo "$MILESTONE_BRANCH_TEMPLATE" | sed "s/{milestone}/$MILESTONE_VERSION/g" | sed "s/{slug}/$MILESTONE_SLUG/g")
+  git checkout -b "$BRANCH_NAME" 2>/dev/null || git checkout "$BRANCH_NAME"
+fi
+```
+
+**Merge options at complete-milestone:**
+
+| Option | Git command | Result |
+|--------|-------------|--------|
+| Squash merge (recommended) | `git merge --squash` | Single clean commit per branch |
+| Merge with history | `git merge --no-ff` | Preserves all individual commits |
+| Delete without merging | `git branch -D` | Discard branch work |
+| Keep branches | (none) | Manual handling later |
+
+Squash merge is recommended — keeps main branch history clean while preserving the full development history in the branch (until deleted).
+
+**Use cases:**
+
+| Strategy | Best for |
+|----------|----------|
+| `none` | Solo development, simple projects |
+| `phase` | Code review per phase, granular rollback, team collaboration |
+| `milestone` | Release branches, staging environments, PR per version |
+
+</branching_strategy_behavior>
+
+</planning_config>

package/docs/references/questioning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+<questioning_guide>
+
+Project initialization is dream extraction, not requirements gathering. You're helping the user discover and articulate what they want to build. This isn't a contract negotiation — it's collaborative thinking.
+
+<philosophy>
+
+**You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer.**
+
+The user often has a fuzzy idea. Your job is to help them sharpen it. Ask questions that make them think "oh, I hadn't considered that" or "yes, that's exactly what I mean."
+
+Don't interrogate. Collaborate. Don't follow a script. Follow the thread.
+
+</philosophy>
+
+<the_goal>
+
+By the end of questioning, you need enough clarity to write a PROJECT.md that downstream phases can act on:
+
+- **Research** needs: what domain to research, what the user already knows, what unknowns exist
+- **Requirements** needs: clear enough vision to scope v1 features
+- **Roadmap** needs: clear enough vision to decompose into phases, what "done" looks like
+- **plan-phase** needs: specific requirements to break into tasks, context for implementation choices
+- **execute-phase** needs: success criteria to verify against, the "why" behind requirements
+
+A vague PROJECT.md forces every downstream phase to guess. The cost compounds.
+
+</the_goal>
+
+<how_to_question>
+
+**Start open.** Let them dump their mental model. Don't interrupt with structure.
+
+**Follow energy.** Whatever they emphasized, dig into that. What excited them? What problem sparked this?
+
+**Challenge vagueness.** Never accept fuzzy answers. "Good" means what? "Users" means who? "Simple" means how?
+
+**Make the abstract concrete.** "Walk me through using this." "What does that actually look like?"
+
+**Clarify ambiguity.** "When you say Z, do you mean A or B?" "You mentioned X — tell me more."
+
+**Know when to stop.** When you understand what they want, why they want it, who it's for, and what done looks like — offer to proceed.
+
+</how_to_question>
+
+<question_types>
+
+Use these as inspiration, not a checklist. Pick what's relevant to the thread.
+
+**Motivation — why this exists:**
+- "What prompted this?"
+- "What are you doing today that this replaces?"
+- "What would you do if this existed?"
+
+**Concreteness — what it actually is:**
+- "Walk me through using this"
+- "You said X — what does that actually look like?"
+- "Give me an example"
+
+**Clarification — what they mean:**
+- "When you say Z, do you mean A or B?"
+- "You mentioned X — tell me more about that"
+
+**Success — how you'll know it's working:**
+- "How will you know this is working?"
+- "What does done look like?"
+
+</question_types>
+
+<using_askuserquestion>
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to help users think by presenting concrete options to react to.
+
+**Good options:**
+- Interpretations of what they might mean
+- Specific examples to confirm or deny
+- Concrete choices that reveal priorities
+
+**Bad options:**
+- Generic categories ("Technical", "Business", "Other")
+- Leading options that presume an answer
+- Too many options (2-4 is ideal)
+- Headers longer than 12 characters (hard limit — validation will reject them)
+
+**Example — vague answer:**
+User says "it should be fast"
+
+- header: "Fast"
+- question: "Fast how?"
+- options: ["Sub-second response", "Handles large datasets", "Quick to build", "Let me explain"]
+
+**Example — following a thread:**
+User mentions "frustrated with current tools"
+
+- header: "Frustration"
+- question: "What specifically frustrates you?"
+- options: ["Too many clicks", "Missing features", "Unreliable", "Let me explain"]
+
+**Tip for users — modifying an option:**
+Users who want a slightly modified version of an option can select "Other" and reference the option by number: `#1 but for finger joints only` or `#2 with pagination disabled`. This avoids retyping the full option text.
+
+</using_askuserquestion>
+
+<freeform_rule>
+
+**When the user wants to explain freely, STOP using AskUserQuestion.**
+
+If a user selects "Other" and their response signals they want to describe something in their own words (e.g., "let me describe it", "I'll explain", "something else", or any open-ended reply that isn't choosing/modifying an existing option), you MUST:
+
+1. **Ask your follow-up as plain text** — NOT via AskUserQuestion
+2. **Wait for them to type at the normal prompt**
+3. **Resume AskUserQuestion** only after processing their freeform response
+
+The same applies if YOU include a freeform-indicating option (like "Let me explain" or "Describe in detail") and the user selects it.
+
+**Wrong:** User says "let me describe it" → AskUserQuestion("What feature?", ["Feature A", "Feature B", "Describe in detail"])
+**Right:** User says "let me describe it" → "Go ahead — what are you thinking?"
+
+</freeform_rule>
+
+<context_checklist>
+
+Use this as a **background checklist**, not a conversation structure. Check these mentally as you go. If gaps remain, weave questions naturally.
+
+- [ ] What they're building (concrete enough to explain to a stranger)
+- [ ] Why it needs to exist (the problem or desire driving it)
+- [ ] Who it's for (even if just themselves)
+- [ ] What "done" looks like (observable outcomes)
+
+Four things. If they volunteer more, capture it.
+
+</context_checklist>
+
+<decision_gate>
+
+When you could write a clear PROJECT.md, offer to proceed:
+
+- header: "Ready?"
+- question: "I think I understand what you're after. Ready to create PROJECT.md?"
+- options:
+  - "Create PROJECT.md" — Let's move forward
+  - "Keep exploring" — I want to share more / ask me more
+
+If "Keep exploring" — ask what they want to add or identify gaps and probe naturally.
+
+Loop until "Create PROJECT.md" selected.
+
+</decision_gate>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Checklist walking** — Going through domains regardless of what they said
+- **Canned questions** — "What's your core value?" "What's out of scope?" regardless of context
+- **Corporate speak** — "What are your success criteria?" "Who are your stakeholders?"
+- **Interrogation** — Firing questions without building on answers
+- **Rushing** — Minimizing questions to get to "the work"
+- **Shallow acceptance** — Taking vague answers without probing
+- **Premature constraints** — Asking about tech stack before understanding the idea
+- **User skills** — NEVER ask about user's technical experience. MindForge builds.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+</questioning_guide>

package/docs/references/tdd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+<overview>
+TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle forces you to think about behavior before implementation, producing cleaner interfaces and more testable code.
+
+**Principle:** If you can describe the behavior as `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`, TDD improves the result.
+
+**Key insight:** TDD work is fundamentally heavier than standard tasks—it requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. TDD features get dedicated plans to ensure full context is available throughout the cycle.
+</overview>
+
+<when_to_use_tdd>
+## When TDD Improves Quality
+
+**TDD candidates (create a TDD plan):**
+- Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
+- API endpoints with request/response contracts
+- Data transformations, parsing, formatting
+- Validation rules and constraints
+- Algorithms with testable behavior
+- State machines and workflows
+- Utility functions with clear specifications
+
+**Skip TDD (use standard plan with `type="auto"` tasks):**
+- UI layout, styling, visual components
+- Configuration changes
+- Glue code connecting existing components
+- One-off scripts and migrations
+- Simple CRUD with no business logic
+- Exploratory prototyping
+
+**Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan
+→ No: Use standard plan, add tests after if needed
+</when_to_use_tdd>
+
+<tdd_plan_structure>
+## TDD Plan Structure
+
+Each TDD plan implements **one feature** through the full RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle.
+
+```markdown
+---
+phase: XX-name
+plan: NN
+type: tdd
+---
+
+<objective>
+[What feature and why]
+Purpose: [Design benefit of TDD for this feature]
+Output: [Working, tested feature]
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@relevant/source/files.ts
+</context>
+
+<feature>
+  <name>[Feature name]</name>
+  <files>[source file, test file]</files>
+  <behavior>
+    [Expected behavior in testable terms]
+    Cases: input → expected output
+  </behavior>
+  <implementation>[How to implement once tests pass]</implementation>
+</feature>
+
+<verification>
+[Test command that proves feature works]
+</verification>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Failing test written and committed
+- Implementation passes test
+- Refactor complete (if needed)
+- All 2-3 commits present
+</success_criteria>
+
+<output>
+After completion, create SUMMARY.md with:
+- RED: What test was written, why it failed
+- GREEN: What implementation made it pass
+- REFACTOR: What cleanup was done (if any)
+- Commits: List of commits produced
+</output>
+```
+
+**One feature per TDD plan.** If features are trivial enough to batch, they're trivial enough to skip TDD—use a standard plan and add tests after.
+</tdd_plan_structure>
+
+<execution_flow>
+## Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
+
+**RED - Write failing test:**
+1. Create test file following project conventions
+2. Write test describing expected behavior (from `<behavior>` element)
+3. Run test - it MUST fail
+4. If test passes: feature exists or test is wrong. Investigate.
+5. Commit: `test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for [feature]`
+
+**GREEN - Implement to pass:**
+1. Write minimal code to make test pass
+2. No cleverness, no optimization - just make it work
+3. Run test - it MUST pass
+4. Commit: `feat({phase}-{plan}): implement [feature]`
+
+**REFACTOR (if needed):**
+1. Clean up implementation if obvious improvements exist
+2. Run tests - MUST still pass
+3. Only commit if changes made: `refactor({phase}-{plan}): clean up [feature]`
+
+**Result:** Each TDD plan produces 2-3 atomic commits.
+</execution_flow>
+
+<test_quality>
+## Good Tests vs Bad Tests
+
+**Test behavior, not implementation:**
+- Good: "returns formatted date string"
+- Bad: "calls formatDate helper with correct params"
+- Tests should survive refactors
+
+**One concept per test:**
+- Good: Separate tests for valid input, empty input, malformed input
+- Bad: Single test checking all edge cases with multiple assertions
+
+**Descriptive names:**
+- Good: "should reject empty email", "returns null for invalid ID"
+- Bad: "test1", "handles error", "works correctly"
+
+**No implementation details:**
+- Good: Test public API, observable behavior
+- Bad: Mock internals, test private methods, assert on internal state
+</test_quality>
+
+<framework_setup>
+## Test Framework Setup (If None Exists)
+
+When executing a TDD plan but no test framework is configured, set it up as part of the RED phase:
+
+**1. Detect project type:**
+```bash
+# JavaScript/TypeScript
+if [ -f package.json ]; then echo "node"; fi
+
+# Python
+if [ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ]; then echo "python"; fi
+
+# Go
+if [ -f go.mod ]; then echo "go"; fi
+
+# Rust
+if [ -f Cargo.toml ]; then echo "rust"; fi
+```
+
+**2. Install minimal framework:**
+| Project | Framework | Install |
+|---------|-----------|---------|
+| Node.js | Jest | `npm install -D jest @types/jest ts-jest` |
+| Node.js (Vite) | Vitest | `npm install -D vitest` |
+| Python | pytest | `pip install pytest` |
+| Go | testing | Built-in |
+| Rust | cargo test | Built-in |
+
+**3. Create config if needed:**
+- Jest: `jest.config.js` with ts-jest preset
+- Vitest: `vitest.config.ts` with test globals
+- pytest: `pytest.ini` or `pyproject.toml` section
+
+**4. Verify setup:**
+```bash
+# Run empty test suite - should pass with 0 tests
+npm test  # Node
+pytest    # Python
+go test ./...  # Go
+cargo test    # Rust
+```
+
+**5. Create first test file:**
+Follow project conventions for test location:
+- `*.test.ts` / `*.spec.ts` next to source
+- `__tests__/` directory
+- `tests/` directory at root
+
+Framework setup is a one-time cost included in the first TDD plan's RED phase.
+</framework_setup>
+
+<error_handling>
+## Error Handling
+
+**Test doesn't fail in RED phase:**
+- Feature may already exist - investigate
+- Test may be wrong (not testing what you think)
+- Fix before proceeding
+
+**Test doesn't pass in GREEN phase:**
+- Debug implementation
+- Don't skip to refactor
+- Keep iterating until green
+
+**Tests fail in REFACTOR phase:**
+- Undo refactor
+- Commit was premature
+- Refactor in smaller steps
+
+**Unrelated tests break:**
+- Stop and investigate
+- May indicate coupling issue
+- Fix before proceeding
+</error_handling>
+
+<commit_pattern>
+## Commit Pattern for TDD Plans
+
+TDD plans produce 2-3 atomic commits (one per phase):
+
+```
+test(08-02): add failing test for email validation
+
+- Tests valid email formats accepted
+- Tests invalid formats rejected
+- Tests empty input handling
+
+feat(08-02): implement email validation
+
+- Regex pattern matches RFC 5322
+- Returns boolean for validity
+- Handles edge cases (empty, null)
+
+refactor(08-02): extract regex to constant (optional)
+
+- Moved pattern to EMAIL_REGEX constant
+- No behavior changes
+- Tests still pass
+```
+
+**Comparison with standard plans:**
+- Standard plans: 1 commit per task, 2-4 commits per plan
+- TDD plans: 2-3 commits for single feature
+
+Both follow same format: `{type}({phase}-{plan}): {description}`
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Each commit independently revertable
+- Git bisect works at commit level
+- Clear history showing TDD discipline
+- Consistent with overall commit strategy
+</commit_pattern>
+
+<context_budget>
+## Context Budget
+
+TDD plans target **~40% context usage** (lower than standard plans' ~50%).
+
+Why lower:
+- RED phase: write test, run test, potentially debug why it didn't fail
+- GREEN phase: implement, run test, potentially iterate on failures
+- REFACTOR phase: modify code, run tests, verify no regressions
+
+Each phase involves reading files, running commands, analyzing output. The back-and-forth is inherently heavier than linear task execution.
+
+Single feature focus ensures full quality throughout the cycle.
+</context_budget>