monomind 1.18.1 → 1.18.2

package/.claude/skills/mastermind/debug.md

@@ -1,232 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mastermind-debug
-description: Systematic root-cause debugging protocol. Use before ANY fix attempt — for test failures, bugs, unexpected behavior, build failures, performance regressions.
----
-
-# mastermind:debug — Systematic Debugging
-
-## 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 or staging
-- Unexpected behavior
-- Performance regressions
-- 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 that didn't work
-- Previous fix didn't resolve the issue
-- You don't fully understand what's happening
-
-**Don't skip when:**
-- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
-- You're in a hurry (systematic is faster than thrashing)
-- The user wants it fixed immediately (systematic approach finds the real fix faster)
-
-## 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 skim 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 the issue 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 between working and broken states
-
-4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
-
-   **WHEN the system has multiple components (CI → build → deploy, API → service → database):**
-
-   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
-   ```
-   For EACH component boundary:
-     - Log what data enters the component
-     - Log what data exits the component
-     - Verify config/env propagation at each layer
-     - Check state at each boundary
-
-   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
-   THEN analyze evidence to identify the failing component
-   THEN investigate that specific component
-   ```
-
-   **Example:**
-   ```bash
-   # Layer 1: entry point
-   echo "=== Input received: ==="
-   echo "VAR: ${VAR:+SET}${VAR:-UNSET}"
-
-   # Layer 2: processing
-   echo "=== State after processing: ==="
-   env | grep VAR || echo "VAR not in environment"
-
-   # Layer 3: output/result
-   echo "=== Final state: ==="
-   ```
-
----
-
-### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
-
-Once you understand WHERE the break is, find existing working examples:
-
-1. **Find working code that solves the same problem**
-   - Search the codebase for similar patterns
-   - Check git history for when this worked
-   - Find the canonical implementation to compare against
-
-2. **Compare broken vs. working**
-   - What's different?
-   - List every difference, not just the obvious one
-   - Environment, config, data, timing
-
----
-
-### Phase 3: Form and Test a Hypothesis
-
-1. **State your hypothesis explicitly:**
-   > "I believe the root cause is [X] because [evidence Y] and [evidence Z]."
-
-2. **Test the hypothesis minimally**
-   - Change one thing and observe the result
-   - If it doesn't confirm or deny, gather more evidence
-   - A confirmed hypothesis means you understand the root cause
-
-3. **If hypothesis is wrong:** Do NOT add more fixes. Return to Phase 1 with the new information.
-
----
-
-### Phase 4: Implementation
-
-1. **Write a failing test first** (before touching production code)
-   - Automated test where possible
-   - Use `Skill("mastermind:build")` with a test-only prompt if needed
-   - The test MUST fail before the fix proves it
-
-2. **Implement a single fix**
-   - Address the root cause identified in Phase 3
-   - ONE change at a time
-   - No "while I'm here" improvements
-   - No bundled refactoring
-
-3. **Verify the fix**
-   - Test passes now?
-   - No other tests broken?
-   - Issue actually resolved?
-   - Use `Skill("mastermind:review")` to verify before declaring done
-
-4. **If the fix doesn't work:**
-   - STOP
-   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
-   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with the new information
-   - **If ≥ 3: STOP — this is likely an architectural problem (see Phase 4.5 below)**
-   - Do NOT attempt a 4th fix without architectural discussion
-
----
-
-### Phase 4.5 — If 3+ Fixes Have Failed: Question the Architecture
-
-**Pattern indicating an architectural problem:**
-- Each fix reveals new coupling or shared state issues in a different place
-- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
-- Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement cleanly
-
-**STOP and question fundamentals:**
-- Is this design pattern fundamentally sound?
-- Are we continuing out of inertia?
-- Should we refactor the architecture rather than continue patching?
-
-**Discuss with the user before attempting more fixes.** This is not a failed hypothesis — this is the wrong architecture.
-
----
-
-## Red Flags — STOP and Return to Phase 1
-
-If you catch yourself thinking or doing any of these:
-
-| Thought / Action | What it means |
-|---|---|
-| "Quick fix for now, investigate later" | You're skipping root cause. Return to Phase 1. |
-| "Just try changing X and see if it works" | Guessing. Return to Phase 1. |
-| "Add multiple changes, run tests" | Can't isolate what worked. Return to Phase 1. |
-| "It's probably X, let me fix that" | Assumed root cause. Verify it first. Return to Phase 1. |
-| "I don't fully understand but this might work" | You don't have a hypothesis. Return to Phase 1. |
-| Proposing solutions before tracing data flow | No root cause. Return to Phase 1. |
-| "One more fix attempt" (already tried 2+) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Phase 4.5. |
-| Each fix reveals a new problem in a different place | Architectural problem. Phase 4.5. |
-
-## User Signals You're Doing It Wrong
-
-Watch for these redirections from the user:
-
-| Signal | What it means |
-|---|---|
-| "Is that actually happening?" | You assumed without verifying. Add evidence gathering. |
-| "What does the output show?" | You should have checked before proposing a fix. |
-| "Stop guessing" | You're proposing fixes without root cause. Phase 1. |
-| "We keep going in circles" | 3+ fix attempts = architectural problem. Phase 4.5. |
-
-## 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 the test after confirming the fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
-| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Creates new bugs. |
-| "I can see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
-| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question the pattern. |
-
-## 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 | Identified differences |
-| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
-| **4. Implementation** | Write failing test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
-
-## Impact
-
-Systematic approach vs random fixing:
-- Time to fix: 15-30 min vs 2-3 hours of thrashing
-- First-time fix rate: ~95% vs ~40%
-- New bugs introduced by the fix: near zero vs common

package/.claude/skills/mastermind/design.md

@@ -1,189 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mastermind-design
-description: "MUST use before any creative work — creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements, and design through collaborative dialogue before any implementation."
-type: domain-skill
-default_mode: confirm
----
-
-# Mastermind Design
-
-Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
-
-Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY request regardless of perceived simplicity.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
----
-
-## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
-
-Every feature goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" tasks are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple requests), but you MUST present it and get approval.
-
----
-
-## Inputs
-
-- `brain_context`: BRAIN CONTEXT block (injected by master, or loaded standalone via _protocol.md brain load)
-- `prompt`: the idea or request to design
-- `project_name`: project context
-- `mode`: auto | confirm
-
----
-
-## Checklist
-
-Complete these items in order:
-
-1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
-2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) — own message, not combined with a clarifying question (see Visual Companion section below)
-3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time; understand purpose, constraints, success criteria
-4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
-5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity; get user approval after each section
-6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/mastermind/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
-7. **Spec self-review** — inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
-8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review before proceeding
-9. **Transition to planning** — invoke `Skill("mastermind:plan")` to create the implementation plan
-
----
-
-## Process Flow
-
-```
-Explore project context
-        ↓
-Visual questions ahead?
-    yes → Offer Visual Companion (own message, no other content)
-    no  ↓
-Ask clarifying questions (one at a time)
-        ↓
-Propose 2-3 approaches
-        ↓
-Present design sections → User approves? → no: revise → loop
-        ↓ yes
-Write design doc
-        ↓
-Spec self-review (fix inline)
-        ↓
-User reviews spec? → changes requested → Write design doc
-        ↓ approved
-Invoke Skill("mastermind:plan")  ← TERMINAL STATE
-```
-
-**The terminal state is invoking `Skill("mastermind:plan")`.** Do NOT invoke mastermind:build or any other implementation skill directly. The ONLY next step after design is plan.
-
----
-
-## The Process
-
-### Understanding the idea
-
-- Check current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
-- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems, flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
-- If too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order to build? Then design the first sub-project through the normal flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
-- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time
-- Prefer multiple-choice questions when possible; open-ended is fine too
-- Only one question per message — if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple messages
-- Focus on: purpose, constraints, success criteria
-
-### Exploring approaches
-
-- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
-- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
-- Lead with the recommended option and explain why
-
-### Presenting the design
-
-- Once you understand what you're building, present the design
-- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
-- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
-- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
-- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
-
-### Design for isolation and clarity
-
-- Break the system into smaller units with one clear purpose each, communicating through well-defined interfaces
-- For each unit, answer: what does it do, how do you use it, what does it depend on?
-- Can someone understand a unit without reading its internals? Can internals change without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
-- Smaller, well-bounded units are easier to reason about and test
-
-### Working in existing codebases
-
-- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
-- Where existing code has problems affecting the work, include targeted improvements as part of the design.
-- Do not propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on the current goal.
-
----
-
-## After the Design
-
-### Documentation
-
-- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/mastermind/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
-  - User preferences for spec location override this default
-- Commit the design document to git
-
-### Spec Self-Review
-
-After writing the spec document, review it with fresh eyes:
-
-1. **Placeholder scan:** Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
-2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
-3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
-4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.
-
-Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.
-
-### User Review Gate
-
-**In confirm mode (default):** Ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
-
-> "Spec written and committed to `<path>`. Please review it and let me know if you want any changes before we start writing the implementation plan."
-
-Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec self-review. Only proceed once the user approves.
-
-**In auto mode:** Skip the wait. Proceed directly to `Skill("mastermind:plan")`.
-
-### Transition to Planning
-
-- Invoke `Skill("mastermind:plan")` to create a detailed implementation plan
-- Do NOT invoke any other skill. `mastermind:plan` is the only next step.
-
----
-
-## Key Principles
-
-- **One question at a time** — do not overwhelm with multiple questions
-- **Multiple choice preferred** — easier to answer than open-ended when possible
-- **YAGNI ruthlessly** — remove unnecessary features from all designs
-- **Explore alternatives** — always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
-- **Incremental validation** — present design, get approval before moving on
-- **Be flexible** — go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
-
----
-
-## Visual Companion
-
-A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during design sessions. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
-
-**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
-
-> "Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"
-
-**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only design.
-
-**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal.
-
-- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams
-- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, scope decisions
-
-If they agree to the companion, use `Skill("mastermind:worktree")` to set up an isolated workspace, then invoke `Skill("agent-browser-testing")` to open the browser.
-
----
-
-## Integration
-
-**Skills used by this skill:**
-- `Skill("mastermind:plan")` — creates the implementation plan after design is approved (terminal state)
-- `Skill("mastermind:worktree")` — isolated workspace for visual companion work

package/.claude/skills/mastermind/execute.md

@@ -1,104 +0,0 @@
----
-name: mastermind-execute
-description: Load a written implementation plan, review it critically, execute all tasks step by step, and hand off to mastermind:finish when complete.
-type: domain-skill
-default_mode: confirm
----
-
-# Mastermind Execute
-
-Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
-
-**Announce at start:** "I'm using the mastermind:execute skill to implement this plan."
-
-**Note:** This skill works best with subagent support (Claude Code). When subagents are available, prefer `Skill("mastermind:taskdev")` for parallel task execution.
-
----
-
-## Inputs
-
-- `brain_context`: BRAIN CONTEXT block (injected by master, or loaded standalone via _protocol.md brain load)
-- `plan_path`: path to the plan file to execute
-- `project_name`: monotask space name
-- `board_id`: monotask board ID
-- `mode`: auto | confirm
-
----
-
-## The Process
-
-### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
-
-1. Read the plan file at `plan_path`
-2. Review critically — identify any questions or concerns:
-   - Missing dependencies or prerequisites
-   - Ambiguous instructions
-   - Steps that contradict each other
-   - Verifications that cannot be run
-3. If concerns exist: raise them with the user before starting
-4. If no concerns: create a TodoWrite with each task and proceed
-
-### Step 2: Execute Tasks
-
-For each task in the plan:
-
-1. Mark as `in_progress`
-2. Follow each step exactly — the plan has bite-sized steps; do not skip or reorder
-3. Run verifications as specified in the plan
-4. Mark as `completed`
-
-When the plan references skills:
-- `mastermind:taskdev` → invoke `Skill("mastermind:taskdev")`
-- `mastermind:verify` → invoke `Skill("mastermind:verify")`
-- Any other `mastermind:*` skill → invoke `Skill("mastermind:<name>")`
-
-### Step 3: Complete Development
-
-After all tasks complete and are verified:
-
-- Announce: "All tasks complete. Handing off to mastermind:finish."
-- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** invoke `Skill("mastermind:finish")`
-- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, and execute the chosen finish action
-
----
-
-## When to Stop and Ask for Help
-
-**STOP executing immediately when:**
-- A blocker is encountered (missing dependency, failing test, unclear instruction)
-- The plan has critical gaps preventing a task from starting
-- An instruction cannot be understood without guessing
-- A verification fails repeatedly (more than twice)
-
-**Ask for clarification rather than guessing.** Never invent steps not in the plan.
-
----
-
-## When to Revisit Earlier Steps
-
-**Return to Step 1 (Review) when:**
-- The user updates the plan based on feedback
-- A fundamental approach needs rethinking due to new information
-
-**Do not force through blockers.** Stop and ask.
-
----
-
-## Rules
-
-- Review the plan critically before touching any code
-- Follow plan steps exactly — do not improvise
-- Do not skip verifications
-- Reference skills when the plan says to invoke them
-- Stop when blocked; never guess
-- Never start implementation on `main` or `master` without explicit user consent
-
----
-
-## Integration
-
-**Skills used by this skill:**
-- `Skill("mastermind:plan")` — creates the plan this skill executes
-- `Skill("mastermind:taskdev")` — subagent-driven parallel task execution (preferred for complex plans)
-- `Skill("mastermind:finish")` — complete the development branch after all tasks
-- `Skill("mastermind:verify")` — verification gate before finishing