opencode-skills-collection 3.1.0 → 3.1.1

package/bundled-skills/bugs-are-annoying/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+---
+name: bugs-are-annoying
+description: Adversarial code auditor that hunts down bugs, logic errors, and security flaws. Use for deep correctness passes, not style reviews.
+risk: critical
+source: community
+date_added: "2026-06-19"
+---
+
+# Bugs Are Annoying
+
+An adversarial QA pass for any codebase, in any language. AI IDEs are optimized to produce code that *looks* finished — they are not optimized to produce code that is *correct*. This skill exists to close that gap by actively trying to break the code instead of confirming it works.
+
+## Core Mindset
+
+Treat all code as guilty until proven innocent. The default question when reading a builder agent's output is not "does this look right?" — it's "how would this break, and what did the author not think of?"
+
+This is an adversarial pass, not a confirmatory one. Do not skim and approve. Do not skip a category because it "seems fine." Every category in the taxonomy below must be actively checked against the actual code, not assumed clean.
+
+## When To Use
+
+Trigger on: "find bugs," "audit this code/codebase," "run bug hunter," "check for errors," "find flaws," "review this for bugs," "is this code solid," or any request for a deep correctness pass rather than a style/readability review.
+
+## Process — Run These Phases In Order
+
+Do not skip phases or collapse them into a single skim. Each phase catches things the others miss.
+
+0. **Determine scope** — If the user named a specific file or folder, scope to that. Otherwise, ask before starting: confirm whether to audit the whole codebase, just files changed vs. the main branch (`git diff`), or a specific area. Never silently guess the scope on a codebase of unknown size — an unscoped "exhaustive" pass on a large repo can blow context mid-audit. Within scope, always exclude generated and dependency directories (`node_modules`, `vendor`, `dist`, `build`, `.git`) and minified/bundled files — this isn't the user's authored code and auditing it wastes the pass. Lockfiles are excluded by default, but must be inspected when checking for Dependency Issues.
+1. **Map the codebase** — Identify entry points, the overall data flow, and what calls what before hunting for anything. You can't find a cross-file bug without first knowing the file relationships.
+2. **Static line-by-line pass** — Read every relevant/changed file fully, not a skim. Check each line against the taxonomy below.
+3. **Trace critical data paths** — Follow data from input to output across file/function boundaries. Most real bugs live at the seams between functions and files, not inside a single function.
+4. **Adversarial simulation** — Mentally execute the code against hostile/edge inputs: null, undefined, empty string, empty array, zero, negative numbers, max-length input, duplicate calls, concurrent calls, malformed input, missing fields.
+5. **Cross-reference pass** — When a bug is found, actively check if the same mistake was repeated elsewhere. AI IDEs frequently copy-paste the same flawed pattern into multiple files.
+6. **Severity triage** — Classify every finding using the definitions below. Do not invent new severity labels.
+7. **Write/update `bugs.md`** — Use the exact format below. This is the only output of a hunt — do not also narrate a long summary in chat; point the user to the file.
+
+## Bug Taxonomy
+
+Language-agnostic. Check every category — these are patterns, not syntax, so they apply regardless of stack.
+
+- **Logic errors** — off-by-one errors, inverted conditionals, wrong operator precedence, incorrect boolean logic
+- **Null/type safety** — unhandled null/undefined, unsafe casts, missing optional-chaining, wrong assumed type
+- **Edge cases** — empty input, zero, negative numbers, single-item vs multi-item collections, first/last iteration of a loop
+- **Error handling** — swallowed exceptions, missing try/catch around fallible calls, errors caught but not logged or surfaced, wrong error propagated up the stack
+- **Concurrency/async** — race conditions, unawaited promises, stale closures, state updated after a component/process has already torn down
+- **Security** — injection points, hardcoded secrets/keys, auth or permission bypass, unsafe deserialization
+- **Resource leaks** — unclosed file handles/streams/connections, listeners or subscriptions never removed
+- **Cross-file consistency** — a function/type/field changed in one file but call sites elsewhere not updated (the single most common AI-IDE failure mode, since builder agents tend to edit one file at a time)
+- **API/contract mismatches** — caller and callee disagree on a field name, type, or required parameter
+- **State management** — mutation of state that should be immutable, derived state that goes stale, double-updates
+- **Dead/unreachable code** — leftovers from an earlier AI attempt that never got cleaned up, code paths that can never execute
+- **Performance** — N+1 queries, avoidable O(n²) where O(n) was available, unnecessary re-computation or re-renders
+- **Dependency issues** — deprecated or vulnerable package versions, conflicting version requirements, use of a deprecated API that still works today but is slated for removal
+- **Documentation/comment mismatches** — a comment or docstring that no longer matches what the code actually does, usually left behind after a later edit
+
+Stylistic or formatting preferences are explicitly **not** bugs. Do not log them.
+
+## Severity Definitions
+
+- 🔴 **Critical** — causes incorrect output, a crash, data loss, or a security hole, under realistic conditions (not a contrived edge case nobody will hit).
+- 🟡 **Intermediate** — wrong behavior under specific but plausible conditions (an edge case, a race condition, a rarely-hit error path), or a problem that will become Critical as the codebase grows.
+- 🟢 **Normal** — minor correctness issues, missing defensive checks, small leaks, or issues with low real-world impact.
+
+**Dormant bugs:** if a bug sits on a code path that isn't currently reachable or used (e.g. a variable that's computed but never read), it still gets the severity it *would* have if active — do not downgrade it for being unreachable. Add a one-line note to the entry that it isn't currently triggered, e.g. "Not yet triggered — `finalPricePerItem` is computed but unused."
+
+## Output Format: `bugs.md`
+
+Write this file at the root of the project being audited (or the relevant scope if auditing a subfolder). Use this exact structure:
+
+```markdown
+# Bug Report — [project/scope name] — [date]
+
+## Summary
+- Critical: N open, N fixed
+- Intermediate: N open, N fixed
+- Normal: N open, N fixed
+
+## 🔴 Critical
+
+### BUG-001: [Short title]
+- **File:** path/to/file.ext:line
+- **Issue:** what is actually wrong
+- **Trigger:** the exact input/sequence that causes it
+- **Impact:** what breaks because of it
+- **Suggested Fix:** described or sketched, not applied
+- **Confidence:** *(omit if fully confirmed in-scope; include "Needs Verification" if it depends on code outside the audited scope)*
+- **Status:** Open
+
+## 🟡 Intermediate
+...
+
+## 🟢 Normal
+...
+
+## ✅ Resolved
+### BUG-0XX: [Title] — Fixed [date]
+(kept for history, moved here once fixed)
+```
+
+Rules for entries:
+- Every bug needs an exact `file:line` reference — never "somewhere in this file."
+- IDs are sequential and never reused (`BUG-001`, `BUG-002`, ...), even across multiple runs.
+- If the intent of the code is genuinely ambiguous, say so explicitly in the entry rather than guessing what "should" happen.
+
+## Re-Run Behavior (History Is Kept)
+
+When `bugs-are-annoying` is run again on a codebase that already has a `bugs.md`:
+
+1. Read the existing file first.
+2. Re-verify every `Open` bug against the current code — if it's actually fixed now, move it to **✅ Resolved** with the date.
+3. Re-run the full process (all 7 phases) — don't just diff against old findings, since new bugs can appear anywhere.
+4. Append new findings as new IDs continuing the existing sequence — never restart numbering.
+5. Update the Summary counts at the top.
+
+The file is a running history of the codebase's health, not a disposable report.
+
+## Hard Rules
+
+- **Never auto-fix.** This skill only ever writes to `bugs.md`. Code is only changed if the user explicitly asks afterward (e.g. "fix BUG-003," "fix all Critical bugs"). Until then, every fix described in `bugs.md` is a suggestion only.
+- **Be exhaustive, not fast.** Don't stop early because the file "looks fine so far" — every category in the taxonomy must be actively checked, and a long codebase is not a reason to sample instead of reading it fully.
+- **No stylistic nitpicks.** Only functional, security, or correctness issues belong in `bugs.md`.
+- **Verify before logging.** Before adding a finding, check whether it's already handled elsewhere — a validator, a wrapper, the type system, a guard clause in a caller. Trace one level out if unsure. If the issue depends on code genuinely outside the audited scope and can't be fully confirmed, log it anyway but mark it `Confidence: Needs Verification` rather than asserting it as certain.
+- **Record clean audits too.** If a pass finds zero new bugs, still write/update `bugs.md` with the Summary counts and the date — a clean result is part of the history, not a no-op.
+- **Always check for repetition.** One instance of a bug is a finding; the same bug copy-pasted into three files is three findings, each logged separately with its own file:line.
+
+## Fix Mode (Explicit Trigger Only)
+
+Only enters this mode when the user explicitly asks to fix something — e.g. "fix BUG-001," "fix all Critical bugs," "apply the suggested fixes for the Intermediate ones."
+
+1. Open `bugs.md` and locate the specified bug ID(s) or severity tier.
+2. Apply the fix described in **Suggested Fix** for each one (or a better fix if the suggested one turns out to be wrong on closer inspection — note this in the entry).
+3. Move each fixed entry to **✅ Resolved** with the date, keeping the original description intact for history.
+4. Do not touch any bug not explicitly named or covered by the requested severity tier.
+
+## Limitations
+
+- This skill cannot execute the code; it relies purely on static analysis and mental tracing.
+- It cannot find logic bugs in areas where the intended business requirements are completely undocumented or ambiguous.

package/bundled-skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Deepening
+
+How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
+
+## Dependency categories
+
+When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.
+
+### 1. In-process
+
+Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable — merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
+
+### 2. Local-substitutable
+
+Dependencies that have local test stand-ins (PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the stand-in exists. The deepened module is tested with the stand-in running in the test suite. The seam is internal; no port at the module's external interface.
+
+### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters)
+
+Your own services across a network boundary (microservices, internal APIs). Define a **port** (interface) at the seam. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected as an **adapter**. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses an HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.
+
+Recommendation shape: *"Define a port at the seam, implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic sits in one deep module even though it's deployed across a network."*
+
+### 4. True external (Mock)
+
+Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port; tests provide a mock adapter.
+
+## Seam discipline
+
+- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a port unless at least two adapters are justified (typically production + test). A single-adapter seam is just indirection.
+- **Internal seams vs external seams.** A deep module can have internal seams (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the external seam at its interface. Don't expose internal seams through the interface just because tests use them.
+
+## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer
+
+- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist — delete them.
+- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
+- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
+- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.

package/bundled-skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Design It Twice
+
+When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
+
+Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Frame the problem space
+
+Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
+
+- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
+- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
+
+Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
+
+### 2. Spawn sub-agents
+
+Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
+
+Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
+
+- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
+- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
+- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
+- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
+
+Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
+
+Each sub-agent outputs:
+
+1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
+2. Usage example showing how callers use it
+3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
+4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
+
+### 3. Present and compare
+
+Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
+
+After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.

package/bundled-skills/codebase-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+---
+name: codebase-design
+description: Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
+category: "architecture"
+risk: "safe"
+source: "community"
+source_repo: "mattpocock/skills"
+source_type: "community"
+date_added: "2026-06-19"
+author: "Matt Pocock"
+license: "MIT"
+license_source: "https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/blob/main/LICENSE"
+tags:
+  - architecture
+  - workflow
+  - coding-agents
+tools:
+  - claude-code
+  - codex-cli
+  - cursor
+---
+
+# Codebase Design
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use when this workflow matches the user request: Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
+
+
+_Source: [mattpocock/skills](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills) (MIT)._
+
+Design **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface. Use this language and these principles wherever code is being designed or restructured. The aim is leverage for callers, locality for maintainers, and testability for everyone.
+
+## Glossary
+
+Use these terms exactly — don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
+
+**Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service.
+
+**Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — they refer only to the type-level surface).
+
+**Implementation** — what's inside a module, its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for "adapter" when the seam is the topic; "implementation" otherwise.
+
+**Depth** — leverage at the interface: the amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
+
+**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_ — a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. Where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it. _Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).
+
+**Adapter** — a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).
+
+**Leverage** — what callers get from depth: more capability per unit of interface they learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
+
+**Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.
+
+## Deep vs shallow
+
+**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation:
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────┐
+│   Small Interface   │  ← Few methods, simple params
+├─────────────────────┤
+│                     │
+│  Deep Implementation│  ← Complex logic hidden
+│                     │
+└─────────────────────┘
+```
+
+**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid):
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────┐
+│       Large Interface           │  ← Many methods, complex params
+├─────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Thin Implementation            │  ← Just passes through
+└─────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+When designing an interface, ask:
+
+- Can I reduce the number of methods?
+- Can I simplify the parameters?
+- Can I hide more complexity inside?
+
+## Principles
+
+- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts — they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.
+- **The deletion test.** Imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
+- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.
+- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.
+
+## Designing for testability
+
+Good interfaces make testing natural:
+
+1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them.**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function processOrder(order) {
+     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
+   }
+   ```
+
+2. **Return results, don't produce side effects.**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
+     cart.total -= discount;
+   }
+   ```
+
+3. **Small surface area.** Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests).
+- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.
+- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.
+- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.
+- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.
+
+## Rejected framings
+
+- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.
+- **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow — interface here includes every fact a caller must know.
+- **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.
+
+## Going deeper
+
+- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies** — see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing.
+- **Exploring alternative interfaces** — see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.
+
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Requires the upstream tool, account, API key, or local setup when the workflow names one.
+- Does not authorize destructive, production, paid, or external-message actions without explicit user approval.
+- Validate generated artifacts or recommendations against the user's real sources before treating them as final.

package/bundled-skills/competitor-analysis/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Browserbase, Inc.
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.