opencode-skills-collection 3.1.12 → 3.1.13

package/bundled-skills/smartui-skill/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+name: smartui-skill
+description: Generates SmartUI visual regression test configurations for screenshot comparison on TestMu AI cloud. Framework-agnostic — works with Playwright, Selenium, Cypress, Puppeteer. Use when user mentions "SmartUI", "visual regression", "screenshot comparison", "visual testing". Triggers on:...
+risk: unknown
+source: https://github.com/LambdaTest/agent-skills/tree/main/smartui-skill
+source_repo: LambdaTest/agent-skills
+source_type: community
+date_added: 2026-07-01
+license: MIT
+license_source: https://github.com/LambdaTest/agent-skills/blob/main/LICENSE
+---
+
+# SmartUI Visual Regression Skill
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill when you need generates SmartUI visual regression test configurations for screenshot comparison on TestMu AI cloud. Framework-agnostic — works with Playwright, Selenium, Cypress, Puppeteer. Use when user mentions "SmartUI", "visual regression", "screenshot comparison", "visual testing". Triggers on:...
+
+
+## Core Patterns
+
+### Playwright + SmartUI SDK
+
+```javascript
+const { chromium } = require('playwright');
+const { smartuiSnapshot } = require('@lambdatest/smartui-cli');
+
+(async () => {
+  const browser = await chromium.launch();
+  const page = await browser.newPage();
+
+  await page.goto('https://example.com');
+  await smartuiSnapshot(page, 'Homepage');
+
+  await page.goto('https://example.com/login');
+  await smartuiSnapshot(page, 'Login Page');
+
+  await browser.close();
+})();
+```
+
+### Selenium + SmartUI
+
+```java
+// Take SmartUI screenshot
+((JavascriptExecutor) driver).executeScript(
+    "smartui.takeScreenshot=Login Page"
+);
+```
+
+### CLI Execution
+
+```bash
+# Install
+npm install @lambdatest/smartui-cli --save-dev
+
+# Configure
+npx smartui config:create smartui.config.json
+
+# Execute
+npx smartui exec -- node test.js
+# or with Playwright
+npx smartui exec -- npx playwright test
+```
+
+### smartui.config.json
+
+```json
+{
+  "web": {
+    "browsers": ["chrome", "firefox", "safari"],
+    "viewports": [[1920, 1080], [1366, 768], [375, 812]]
+  },
+  "waitForPageRender": 5000,
+  "waitForTimeout": 1000
+}
+```
+
+### SmartUI with Storybook
+
+```bash
+npx smartui storybook http://localhost:6006 --config smartui.config.json
+```
+
+### Approval Workflow
+
+1. First run creates baseline screenshots
+2. Subsequent runs compare against baseline
+3. Differences highlighted in dashboard
+4. Approve/reject changes in LambdaTest SmartUI dashboard
+5. Approved screenshots become new baseline
+
+### Anti-Patterns
+
+| Bad | Good | Why |
+|-----|------|-----|
+| No viewport config | Multiple viewports | Responsive issues |
+| No wait for render | `waitForPageRender` | Incomplete screenshots |
+| Screenshot everything | Key pages/components | Noise reduction |
+| No approval process | Review diffs in dashboard | Catch regressions |
+
+### Cloud Authentication
+
+Set environment variables:
+
+```bash
+export PROJECT_TOKEN="your-smartui-project-token"   # From SmartUI dashboard
+export LT_USERNAME="your-username"                   # For Selenium/Playwright cloud
+export LT_ACCESS_KEY="your-access-key"               # For Selenium/Playwright cloud
+```
+
+**CLI approach** (uses `PROJECT_TOKEN`):
+```bash
+npx smartui exec -- npx playwright test
+```
+
+**Selenium Cloud approach** (uses `LT_USERNAME`/`LT_ACCESS_KEY`):
+```java
+// Capabilities include SmartUI options
+HashMap<String, Object> ltOptions = new HashMap<>();
+ltOptions.put("user", System.getenv("LT_USERNAME"));
+ltOptions.put("accessKey", System.getenv("LT_ACCESS_KEY"));
+ltOptions.put("build", "SmartUI Build");
+ltOptions.put("smartUI.project", "My SmartUI Project");
+ChromeOptions options = new ChromeOptions();
+options.setCapability("LT:Options", ltOptions);
+WebDriver driver = new RemoteWebDriver(
+    new URL("https://hub.lambdatest.com/wd/hub"), options);
+```
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Task | Command |
+|------|---------|
+| Install | `npm install @lambdatest/smartui-cli` |
+| Init config | `npx smartui config:create smartui.config.json` |
+| Run | `npx smartui exec -- <test command>` |
+| Storybook | `npx smartui storybook <url>` |
+| Dashboard | `https://smartui.lambdatest.com` |
+
+## Deep Patterns
+
+For advanced patterns, debugging guides, CI/CD integration, and best practices,
+see `reference/playbook.md`.
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
+- Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
+- Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.

package/bundled-skills/source-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+---
+name: source-driven-development
+description: Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.
+risk: unknown
+source: https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills/tree/main/skills/source-driven-development
+source_repo: addyosmani/agent-skills
+source_type: community
+date_added: 2026-07-01
+license: MIT
+license_source: https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills/blob/main/LICENSE
+---
+
+# Source-Driven Development
+
+## Overview
+
+Every framework-specific code decision must be backed by official documentation. Don't implement from memory — verify, cite, and let the user see your sources. Training data goes stale, APIs get deprecated, best practices evolve. This skill ensures the user gets code they can trust because every pattern traces back to an authoritative source they can check.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- The user wants code that follows current best practices for a given framework
+- Building boilerplate, starter code, or patterns that will be copied across a project
+- The user explicitly asks for documented, verified, or "correct" implementation
+- Implementing features where the framework's recommended approach matters (forms, routing, data fetching, state management, auth)
+- Reviewing or improving code that uses framework-specific patterns
+- Any time you are about to write framework-specific code from memory
+
+**When NOT to use:**
+
+- Correctness does not depend on a specific version (renaming variables, fixing typos, moving files)
+- Pure logic that works the same across all versions (loops, conditionals, data structures)
+- The user explicitly wants speed over verification ("just do it quickly")
+
+## The Process
+
+```
+DETECT ──→ FETCH ──→ IMPLEMENT ──→ CITE
+  │          │           │            │
+  ▼          ▼           ▼            ▼
+ What       Get the    Follow the   Show your
+ stack?     relevant   documented   sources
+            docs       patterns
+```
+
+### Step 1: Detect Stack and Versions
+
+Read the project's dependency file to identify exact versions:
+
+```
+package.json    → Node/React/Vue/Angular/Svelte
+composer.json   → PHP/Symfony/Laravel
+requirements.txt / pyproject.toml → Python/Django/Flask
+go.mod          → Go
+Cargo.toml      → Rust
+Gemfile         → Ruby/Rails
+```
+
+State what you found explicitly:
+
+```
+STACK DETECTED:
+- React 19.1.0 (from package.json)
+- Vite 6.2.0
+- Tailwind CSS 4.0.3
+→ Fetching official docs for the relevant patterns.
+```
+
+If versions are missing or ambiguous, **ask the user**. Don't guess — the version determines which patterns are correct.
+
+### Step 2: Fetch Official Documentation
+
+Fetch the specific documentation page for the feature you're implementing. Not the homepage, not the full docs — the relevant page.
+
+**Source hierarchy (in order of authority):**
+
+| Priority | Source | Example |
+|----------|--------|---------|
+| 1 | Official documentation | react.dev, docs.djangoproject.com, symfony.com/doc |
+| 2 | Official blog / changelog | react.dev/blog, nextjs.org/blog |
+| 3 | Web standards references | MDN, web.dev, html.spec.whatwg.org |
+| 4 | Browser/runtime compatibility | caniuse.com, node.green |
+
+**Not authoritative — never cite as primary sources:**
+
+- Stack Overflow answers
+- Blog posts or tutorials (even popular ones)
+- AI-generated documentation or summaries
+- Your own training data (that is the whole point — verify it)
+
+**Be precise with what you fetch:**
+
+```
+BAD:  Fetch the React homepage
+GOOD: Fetch react.dev/reference/react/useActionState
+
+BAD:  Search "django authentication best practices"
+GOOD: Fetch docs.djangoproject.com/en/6.0/topics/auth/
+```
+
+After fetching, extract the key patterns and note any deprecation warnings or migration guidance.
+
+When official sources conflict with each other (e.g. a migration guide contradicts the API reference), surface the discrepancy to the user and verify which pattern actually works against the detected version.
+
+### Step 3: Implement Following Documented Patterns
+
+Write code that matches what the documentation shows:
+
+- Use the API signatures from the docs, not from memory
+- If the docs show a new way to do something, use the new way
+- If the docs deprecate a pattern, don't use the deprecated version
+- If the docs don't cover something, flag it as unverified
+
+**When docs conflict with existing project code:**
+
+```
+CONFLICT DETECTED:
+The existing codebase uses useState for form loading state,
+but React 19 docs recommend useActionState for this pattern.
+(Source: react.dev/reference/react/useActionState)
+
+Options:
+A) Use the modern pattern (useActionState) — consistent with current docs
+B) Match existing code (useState) — consistent with codebase
+→ Which approach do you prefer?
+```
+
+Surface the conflict. Don't silently pick one.
+
+### Step 4: Cite Your Sources
+
+Every framework-specific pattern gets a citation. The user must be able to verify every decision.
+
+**In code comments:**
+
+```typescript
+// React 19 form handling with useActionState
+// Source: https://react.dev/reference/react/useActionState#usage
+const [state, formAction, isPending] = useActionState(submitOrder, initialState);
+```
+
+**In conversation:**
+
+```
+I'm using useActionState instead of manual useState for the
+form submission state. React 19 replaced the manual
+isPending/setIsPending pattern with this hook.
+
+Source: https://react.dev/blog/2024/12/05/react-19#actions
+"useTransition now supports async functions [...] to handle
+pending states automatically"
+```
+
+**Citation rules:**
+
+- Full URLs, not shortened
+- Prefer deep links with anchors where possible (e.g. `/useActionState#usage` over `/useActionState`) — anchors survive doc restructuring better than top-level pages
+- Quote the relevant passage when it supports a non-obvious decision
+- Include browser/runtime support data when recommending platform features
+- If you cannot find documentation for a pattern, say so explicitly:
+
+```
+UNVERIFIED: I could not find official documentation for this
+pattern. This is based on training data and may be outdated.
+Verify before using in production.
+```
+
+Honesty about what you couldn't verify is more valuable than false confidence.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "I'm confident about this API" | Confidence is not evidence. Training data contains outdated patterns that look correct but break against current versions. Verify. |
+| "Fetching docs wastes tokens" | Hallucinating an API wastes more. The user debugs for an hour, then discovers the function signature changed. One fetch prevents hours of rework. |
+| "The docs won't have what I need" | If the docs don't cover it, that's valuable information — the pattern may not be officially recommended. |
+| "I'll just mention it might be outdated" | A disclaimer doesn't help. Either verify and cite, or clearly flag it as unverified. Hedging is the worst option. |
+| "This is a simple task, no need to check" | Simple tasks with wrong patterns become templates. The user copies your deprecated form handler into ten components before discovering the modern approach exists. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Writing framework-specific code without checking the docs for that version
+- Using "I believe" or "I think" about an API instead of citing the source
+- Implementing a pattern without knowing which version it applies to
+- Citing Stack Overflow or blog posts instead of official documentation
+- Using deprecated APIs because they appear in training data
+- Not reading `package.json` / dependency files before implementing
+- Delivering code without source citations for framework-specific decisions
+- Fetching an entire docs site when only one page is relevant
+
+## Verification
+
+After implementing with source-driven development:
+
+- [ ] Framework and library versions were identified from the dependency file
+- [ ] Official documentation was fetched for framework-specific patterns
+- [ ] All sources are official documentation, not blog posts or training data
+- [ ] Code follows the patterns shown in the current version's documentation
+- [ ] Non-trivial decisions include source citations with full URLs
+- [ ] No deprecated APIs are used (checked against migration guides)
+- [ ] Conflicts between docs and existing code were surfaced to the user
+- [ ] Anything that could not be verified is explicitly flagged as unverified
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
+- Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
+- Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.

package/bundled-skills/spec-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+---
+name: spec-driven-development
+description: Creates specs before coding. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change and no specification exists yet. Use when requirements are unclear, ambiguous, or only exist as a vague idea.
+risk: unknown
+source: https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills/tree/main/skills/spec-driven-development
+source_repo: addyosmani/agent-skills
+source_type: community
+date_added: 2026-07-01
+license: MIT
+license_source: https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills/blob/main/LICENSE
+---
+
+# Spec-Driven Development
+
+## Overview
+
+Write a structured specification before writing any code. The spec is the shared source of truth between you and the human engineer — it defines what we're building, why, and how we'll know it's done. Code without a spec is guessing.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Starting a new project or feature
+- Requirements are ambiguous or incomplete
+- The change touches multiple files or modules
+- You're about to make an architectural decision
+- The task would take more than 30 minutes to implement
+
+**When NOT to use:** Single-line fixes, typo corrections, or changes where requirements are unambiguous and self-contained.
+
+## The Gated Workflow
+
+Spec-driven development has four phases. Do not advance to the next phase until the current one is validated.
+
+```
+SPECIFY ──→ PLAN ──→ TASKS ──→ IMPLEMENT
+   │          │        │          │
+   ▼          ▼        ▼          ▼
+ Human      Human    Human      Human
+ reviews    reviews  reviews    reviews
+```
+
+### Phase 1: Specify
+
+Start with a high-level vision. Ask the human clarifying questions until requirements are concrete.
+
+**Surface assumptions immediately.** Before writing any spec content, list what you're assuming:
+
+```
+ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
+1. This is a web application (not native mobile)
+2. Authentication uses session-based cookies (not JWT)
+3. The database is PostgreSQL (based on existing Prisma schema)
+4. We're targeting modern browsers only (no IE11)
+→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
+```
+
+Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The spec's entire purpose is to surface misunderstandings *before* code gets written — assumptions are the most dangerous form of misunderstanding.
+
+**Write a spec document covering these six core areas:**
+
+1. **Objective** — What are we building and why? Who is the user? What does success look like?
+
+2. **Commands** — Full executable commands with flags, not just tool names.
+   ```
+   Build: npm run build
+   Test: npm test -- --coverage
+   Lint: npm run lint --fix
+   Dev: npm run dev
+   ```
+
+3. **Project Structure** — Where source code lives, where tests go, where docs belong.
+   ```
+   src/           → Application source code
+   src/components → React components
+   src/lib        → Shared utilities
+   tests/         → Unit and integration tests
+   e2e/           → End-to-end tests
+   docs/          → Documentation
+   ```
+
+4. **Code Style** — One real code snippet showing your style beats three paragraphs describing it. Include naming conventions, formatting rules, and examples of good output.
+
+5. **Testing Strategy** — What framework, where tests live, coverage expectations, which test levels for which concerns.
+
+6. **Boundaries** — Three-tier system:
+   - **Always do:** Run tests before commits, follow naming conventions, validate inputs
+   - **Ask first:** Database schema changes, adding dependencies, changing CI config
+   - **Never do:** Commit secrets, edit vendor directories, remove failing tests without approval
+
+**Spec template:**
+
+```markdown
+# Spec: [Project/Feature Name]
+
+## Objective
+[What we're building and why. User stories or acceptance criteria.]
+
+## Tech Stack
+[Framework, language, key dependencies with versions]
+
+## Commands
+[Build, test, lint, dev — full commands]
+
+## Project Structure
+[Directory layout with descriptions]
+
+## Code Style
+[Example snippet + key conventions]
+
+## Testing Strategy
+[Framework, test locations, coverage requirements, test levels]
+
+## Boundaries
+- Always: [...]
+- Ask first: [...]
+- Never: [...]
+
+## Success Criteria
+[How we'll know this is done — specific, testable conditions]
+
+## Open Questions
+[Anything unresolved that needs human input]
+```
+
+**Reframe instructions as success criteria.** When receiving vague requirements, translate them into concrete conditions:
+
+```
+REQUIREMENT: "Make the dashboard faster"
+
+REFRAMED SUCCESS CRITERIA:
+- Dashboard LCP < 2.5s on 4G connection
+- Initial data load completes in < 500ms
+- No layout shift during load (CLS < 0.1)
+→ Are these the right targets?
+```
+
+This lets you loop, retry, and problem-solve toward a clear goal rather than guessing what "faster" means.
+
+### Phase 2: Plan
+
+With the validated spec, generate a technical implementation plan:
+
+1. Identify the major components and their dependencies
+2. Determine the implementation order (what must be built first)
+3. Note risks and mitigation strategies
+4. Identify what can be built in parallel vs. what must be sequential
+5. Define verification checkpoints between phases
+
+> Follow `planning-and-task-breakdown` for the dependency-graph mapping and vertical-slicing mechanics behind these steps; it is the canonical source. The bullets above are a lightweight summary; if they ever diverge, `planning-and-task-breakdown` takes precedence.
+
+The plan should be reviewable: the human should be able to read it and say "yes, that's the right approach" or "no, change X."
+
+### Phase 3: Tasks
+
+Break the plan into discrete, implementable tasks:
+
+- Each task should be completable in a single focused session
+- Each task has explicit acceptance criteria
+- Each task includes a verification step (test, build, manual check)
+- Tasks are ordered by dependency, not by perceived importance
+- No task should require changing more than ~5 files
+
+> Follow `planning-and-task-breakdown` for the full task-sizing and dependency-ordering mechanics; it is the canonical source. The template below is a lightweight inline form; if they ever diverge, `planning-and-task-breakdown` takes precedence.
+
+**Task template:**
+```markdown
+- [ ] Task: [Description]
+  - Acceptance: [What must be true when done]
+  - Verify: [How to confirm — test command, build, manual check]
+  - Files: [Which files will be touched]
+```
+
+### Phase 4: Implement
+
+Execute tasks one at a time following `skills/incremental-implementation/SKILL.md` (`incremental-implementation`) and `skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md` (`test-driven-development`). Use `skills/context-engineering/SKILL.md` (`context-engineering`) to load the right spec sections and source files at each step rather than flooding the agent with the entire spec.
+
+## Keeping the Spec Alive
+
+The spec is a living document, not a one-time artifact:
+
+- **Update when decisions change** — If you discover the data model needs to change, update the spec first, then implement.
+- **Update when scope changes** — Features added or cut should be reflected in the spec.
+- **Commit the spec** — The spec belongs in version control alongside the code.
+- **Reference the spec in PRs** — Link back to the spec section that each PR implements.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "This is simple, I don't need a spec" | Simple tasks don't need *long* specs, but they still need acceptance criteria. A two-line spec is fine. |
+| "I'll write the spec after I code it" | That's documentation, not specification. The spec's value is in forcing clarity *before* code. |
+| "The spec will slow us down" | A 15-minute spec prevents hours of rework. Waterfall in 15 minutes beats debugging in 15 hours. |
+| "Requirements will change anyway" | That's why the spec is a living document. An outdated spec is still better than no spec. |
+| "The user knows what they want" | Even clear requests have implicit assumptions. The spec surfaces those assumptions. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Starting to write code without any written requirements
+- Asking "should I just start building?" before clarifying what "done" means
+- Implementing features not mentioned in any spec or task list
+- Making architectural decisions without documenting them
+- Skipping the spec because "it's obvious what to build"
+
+## Verification
+
+Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:
+
+- [ ] The spec covers all six core areas
+- [ ] The human has reviewed and approved the spec
+- [ ] Success criteria are specific and testable
+- [ ] Boundaries (Always/Ask First/Never) are defined
+- [ ] The spec is saved to a file in the repository
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
+- Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
+- Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.