mindforge-cc 8.2.0 → 10.0.0

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.agent/skills/mindforge-research-phase/SKILL.md

@@ -1,186 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mindforge-research-phase
-description: Research how to implement a phase (standalone - usually use /mindforge-plan-phase instead)
----
-
-
-<objective>
-Research how to implement a phase. Spawns mindforge-phase-researcher agent with phase context.
-
-**Note:** This is a standalone research command. For most workflows, use `/mindforge-plan-phase` which integrates research automatically.
-
-**Use this command when:**
-- You want to research without planning yet
-- You want to re-research after planning is complete
-- You need to investigate before deciding if a phase is feasible
-
-**Orchestrator role:** Parse phase, validate against roadmap, check existing research, gather context, spawn researcher agent, present results.
-
-**Why subagent:** Research burns context fast (WebSearch, Context7 queries, source verification). Fresh 200k context for investigation. Main context stays lean for user interaction.
-</objective>
-
-<context>
-Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)
-
-Normalize phase input in step 1 before any directory lookups.
-</context>
-
-<process>
-
-## 0. Initialize Context
-
-```bash
-INIT=$(node ".agent/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" init phase-op "$ARGUMENTS")
-if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
-```
-
-Extract from init JSON: `phase_dir`, `phase_number`, `phase_name`, `phase_found`, `commit_docs`, `has_research`, `state_path`, `requirements_path`, `context_path`, `research_path`.
-
-Resolve researcher model:
-```bash
-RESEARCHER_MODEL=$(node ".agent/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" resolve-model mindforge-phase-researcher --raw)
-```
-
-## 1. Validate Phase
-
-```bash
-PHASE_INFO=$(node ".agent/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" roadmap get-phase "${phase_number}")
-```
-
-**If `found` is false:** Error and exit. **If `found` is true:** Extract `phase_number`, `phase_name`, `goal` from JSON.
-
-## 2. Check Existing Research
-
-```bash
-ls .planning/phases/${PHASE}-*/RESEARCH.md 2>/dev/null
-```
-
-**If exists:** Offer: 1) Update research, 2) View existing, 3) Skip. Wait for response.
-
-**If doesn't exist:** Continue.
-
-## 3. Gather Phase Context
-
-Use paths from INIT (do not inline file contents in orchestrator context):
-- `requirements_path`
-- `context_path`
-- `state_path`
-
-Present summary with phase description and what files the researcher will load.
-
-## 4. Spawn mindforge-phase-researcher Agent
-
-Research modes: ecosystem (default), feasibility, implementation, comparison.
-
-```markdown
-<research_type>
-Phase Research — investigating HOW to implement a specific phase well.
-</research_type>
-
-<key_insight>
-The question is NOT "which library should I use?"
-
-The question is: "What do I not know that I don't know?"
-
-For this phase, discover:
-- What's the established architecture pattern?
-- What libraries form the standard stack?
-- What problems do people commonly hit?
-- What's SOTA vs what the agent's training thinks is SOTA?
-- What should NOT be hand-rolled?
-</key_insight>
-
-<objective>
-Research implementation approach for Phase {phase_number}: {phase_name}
-Mode: ecosystem
-</objective>
-
-<files_to_read>
-- {requirements_path} (Requirements)
-- {context_path} (Phase context from discuss-phase, if exists)
-- {state_path} (Prior project decisions and blockers)
-</files_to_read>
-
-<additional_context>
-**Phase description:** {phase_description}
-</additional_context>
-
-<downstream_consumer>
-Your RESEARCH.md will be loaded by `/mindforge-plan-phase` which uses specific sections:
-- `## Standard Stack` → Plans use these libraries
-- `## Architecture Patterns` → Task structure follows these
-- `## Don't Hand-Roll` → Tasks NEVER build custom solutions for listed problems
-- `## Common Pitfalls` → Verification steps check for these
-- `## Code Examples` → Task actions reference these patterns
-
-Be prescriptive, not exploratory. "Use X" not "Consider X or Y."
-</downstream_consumer>
-
-<quality_gate>
-Before declaring complete, verify:
-- [ ] All domains investigated (not just some)
-- [ ] Negative claims verified with official docs
-- [ ] Multiple sources for critical claims
-- [ ] Confidence levels assigned honestly
-- [ ] Section names match what plan-phase expects
-</quality_gate>
-
-<output>
-Write to: .planning/phases/${PHASE}-{slug}/${PHASE}-RESEARCH.md
-</output>
-```
-
-```
-Task(
-  prompt=filled_prompt,
-  subagent_type="mindforge-phase-researcher",
-  model="{researcher_model}",
-  description="Research Phase {phase}"
-)
-```
-
-## 5. Handle Agent Return
-
-**`## RESEARCH COMPLETE`:** Display summary, offer: Plan phase, Dig deeper, Review full, Done.
-
-**`## CHECKPOINT REACHED`:** Present to user, get response, spawn continuation.
-
-**`## RESEARCH INCONCLUSIVE`:** Show what was attempted, offer: Add context, Try different mode, Manual.
-
-## 6. Spawn Continuation Agent
-
-```markdown
-<objective>
-Continue research for Phase {phase_number}: {phase_name}
-</objective>
-
-<prior_state>
-<files_to_read>
-- .planning/phases/${PHASE}-{slug}/${PHASE}-RESEARCH.md (Existing research)
-</files_to_read>
-</prior_state>
-
-<checkpoint_response>
-**Type:** {checkpoint_type}
-**Response:** {user_response}
-</checkpoint_response>
-```
-
-```
-Task(
-  prompt=continuation_prompt,
-  subagent_type="mindforge-phase-researcher",
-  model="{researcher_model}",
-  description="Continue research Phase {phase}"
-)
-```
-
-</process>
-
-<success_criteria>
-- [ ] Phase validated against roadmap
-- [ ] Existing research checked
-- [ ] mindforge-phase-researcher spawned with context
-- [ ] Checkpoints handled correctly
-- [ ] User knows next steps
-</success_criteria>

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.agent/skills/mindforge-resume-work/SKILL.md

@@ -1,35 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mindforge-resume-work
-description: Resume work from previous session with full context restoration
----
-
-
-<objective>
-Restore complete project context and resume work seamlessly from previous session.
-
-Routes to the resume-project workflow which handles:
-
-- STATE.md loading (or reconstruction if missing)
-- Checkpoint detection (.continue-here files)
-- Incomplete work detection (PLAN without SUMMARY)
-- Status presentation
-- Context-aware next action routing
-  </objective>
-
-<execution_context>
-@.agent/workflows/mindforge-resume-project.md
-</execution_context>
-
-<process>
-**Follow the resume-project workflow** from `@.agent/workflows/mindforge-resume-project.md`.
-
-The workflow handles all resumption logic including:
-
-1. Project existence verification
-2. STATE.md loading or reconstruction
-3. Checkpoint and incomplete work detection
-4. Visual status presentation
-5. Context-aware option offering (checks CONTEXT.md before suggesting plan vs discuss)
-6. Routing to appropriate next command
-7. Session continuity updates
-   </process>

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.agent/skills/mindforge-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mindforge-review
-description: Request cross-AI peer review of phase plans from external AI CLIs
----
-
-
-<objective>
-Invoke external AI CLIs (Gemini, the agent, Codex) to independently review phase plans.
-Produces a structured REVIEWS.md with per-reviewer feedback that can be fed back into
-planning via /mindforge-plan-phase --reviews.
-
-**Flow:** Detect CLIs → Build review prompt → Invoke each CLI → Collect responses → Write REVIEWS.md
-</objective>
-
-<execution_context>
-@.agent/workflows/mindforge-review.md
-</execution_context>
-
-<context>
-Phase number: extracted from $ARGUMENTS (required)
-
-**Flags:**
-- `--gemini` — Include Gemini CLI review
-- `--claude` — Include the agent CLI review (uses separate session)
-- `--codex` — Include Codex CLI review
-- `--all` — Include all available CLIs
-</context>
-
-<process>
-Execute the review workflow from @.agent/workflows/mindforge-review.md end-to-end.
-</process>

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.agent/skills/mindforge-review-backlog/SKILL.md

@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mindforge-review-backlog
-description: Review and promote backlog items to active milestone
----
-
-
-<objective>
-Review all 999.x backlog items and optionally promote them into the active
-milestone sequence or remove stale entries.
-</objective>
-
-<process>
-
-1. **List backlog items:**
-   ```bash
-   ls -d .planning/phases/999* 2>/dev/null || echo "No backlog items found"
-   ```
-
-2. **Read ROADMAP.md** and extract all 999.x phase entries:
-   ```bash
-   cat .planning/ROADMAP.md
-   ```
-   Show each backlog item with its description, any accumulated context (CONTEXT.md, RESEARCH.md), and creation date.
-
-3. **Present the list to the user** via AskUserQuestion:
-   - For each backlog item, show: phase number, description, accumulated artifacts
-   - Options per item: **Promote** (move to active), **Keep** (leave in backlog), **Remove** (delete)
-
-4. **For items to PROMOTE:**
-   - Find the next sequential phase number in the active milestone
-   - Rename the directory from `999.x-slug` to `{new_num}-slug`:
-     ```bash
-     NEW_NUM=$(node ".agent/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" phase add "${DESCRIPTION}" --raw)
-     ```
-   - Move accumulated artifacts to the new phase directory
-   - Update ROADMAP.md: move the entry from `## Backlog` section to the active phase list
-   - Remove `(BACKLOG)` marker
-   - Add appropriate `**Depends on:**` field
-
-5. **For items to REMOVE:**
-   - Delete the phase directory
-   - Remove the entry from ROADMAP.md `## Backlog` section
-
-6. **Commit changes:**
-   ```bash
-   node ".agent/bin/mindforge-tools.cjs" commit "docs: review backlog — promoted N, removed M" --files .planning/ROADMAP.md
-   ```
-
-7. **Report summary:**
-   ```
-   ## 📋 Backlog Review Complete
-
-   Promoted: {list of promoted items with new phase numbers}
-   Kept: {list of items remaining in backlog}
-   Removed: {list of deleted items}
-   ```
-
-</process>

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.agent/skills/mindforge-review-inbound/SKILL.md

@@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
----
-name: receiving-code-review
-description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
----
-
-# Code Review Reception
-
-## Overview
-
-Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
-
-**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
-
-## The Response Pattern
-
-```
-WHEN receiving code review feedback:
-
-1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
-2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
-3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
-4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
-5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
-6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
-```
-
-## Forbidden Responses
-
-**NEVER:**
-- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
-- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
-- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
-
-**INSTEAD:**
-- Restate the technical requirement
-- Ask clarifying questions
-- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
-- Just start working (actions > words)
-
-## Handling Unclear Feedback
-
-```
-IF any item is unclear:
-  STOP - do not implement anything yet
-  ASK for clarification on unclear items
-
-WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
-```
-
-**Example:**
-```
-your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-
-❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
-✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
-```
-
-## Source-Specific Handling
-
-### From your human partner
-- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
-- **Still ask** if scope unclear
-- **No performative agreement**
-- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
-
-### From External Reviewers
-```
-BEFORE implementing:
-  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
-  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
-  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
-  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
-  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
-
-IF suggestion seems wrong:
-  Push back with technical reasoning
-
-IF can't easily verify:
-  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
-
-IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
-  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
-```
-
-**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
-
-## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
-
-```
-IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
-  grep codebase for actual usage
-
-  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
-  IF used: Then implement properly
-```
-
-**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
-
-## Implementation Order
-
-```
-FOR multi-item feedback:
-  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
-  2. Then implement in this order:
-     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
-     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
-     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
-  3. Test each fix individually
-  4. Verify no regressions
-```
-
-## When To Push Back
-
-Push back when:
-- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
-- Reviewer lacks full context
-- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
-- Technically incorrect for this stack
-- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
-- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
-
-**How to push back:**
-- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
-- Ask specific questions
-- Reference working tests/code
-- Involve your human partner if architectural
-
-**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
-
-## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
-
-When feedback IS correct:
-```
-✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
-✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
-✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
-
-❌ "You're absolutely right!"
-❌ "Great point!"
-❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
-❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
-❌ ANY gratitude expression
-```
-
-**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
-
-**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
-
-## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
-
-If you pushed back and were wrong:
-```
-✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
-✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
-
-❌ Long apology
-❌ Defending why you pushed back
-❌ Over-explaining
-```
-
-State the correction factually and move on.
-
-## Common Mistakes
-
-| Mistake | Fix |
-|---------|-----|
-| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
-| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
-| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
-| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
-| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
-| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
-| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
-
-## Real Examples
-
-**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
-```
-
-**Technical Verification (Good):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
-```
-
-**YAGNI (Good):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
-✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
-```
-
-**Unclear Item (Good):**
-```
-your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
-```
-
-## GitHub Thread Replies
-
-When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
-
-Verify. Question. Then implement.
-
-No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/.mindforge/mirrors/mirror-sre-776a1cf9/.agent/skills/mindforge-review-request/SKILL.md

@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
----
-name: requesting-code-review
-description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
----
-
-# Requesting Code Review
-
-Dispatch mindforge:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
-
-**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
-
-## When to Request Review
-
-**Mandatory:**
-- After each task in subagent-driven development
-- After completing major feature
-- Before merge to main
-
-**Optional but valuable:**
-- When stuck (fresh perspective)
-- Before refactoring (baseline check)
-- After fixing complex bug
-
-## How to Request
-
-**1. Get git SHAs:**
-```bash
-BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-```
-
-**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
-
-Use Task tool with mindforge:code-reviewer type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
-
-**Placeholders:**
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
-- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
-- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
-
-**3. Act on feedback:**
-- Fix Critical issues immediately
-- Fix Important issues before proceeding
-- Note Minor issues for later
-- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
-
-## Example
-
-```
-[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
-
-You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
-
-BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-
-[Dispatch mindforge:code-reviewer subagent]
-  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
-  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/mindforge/plans/deployment-plan.md
-  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
-  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
-  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
-
-[Subagent returns]:
-  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
-  Issues:
-    Important: Missing progress indicators
-    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
-  Assessment: Ready to proceed
-
-You: [Fix progress indicators]
-[Continue to Task 3]
-```
-
-## Integration with Workflows
-
-**Subagent-Driven Development:**
-- Review after EACH task
-- Catch issues before they compound
-- Fix before moving to next task
-
-**Executing Plans:**
-- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
-- Get feedback, apply, continue
-
-**Ad-Hoc Development:**
-- Review before merge
-- Review when stuck
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-- Skip review because "it's simple"
-- Ignore Critical issues
-- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
-- Argue with valid technical feedback
-
-**If reviewer wrong:**
-- Push back with technical reasoning
-- Show code/tests that prove it works
-- Request clarification
-
-See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md