ostacky 0.6.0 → 0.6.2

package/assets/skills/openspec-propose/SKILL.md

@@ -1,114 +1,114 @@
----
-name: openspec-propose
-description: Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.
-license: MIT
-compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
-metadata:
-  author: openspec
-  version: "1.0"
-  generatedBy: "1.3.1"
----
-
-**IMPORTANT:** Engram is an **MCP server**, not a skill. Tools `mem_save`, `mem_search`, `mem_context` are MCP tools. Do NOT use `skill("engram")` — it doesn't exist.
-
-Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.
-
-I'll create a change with artifacts:
-- proposal.md (what & why)
-- design.md (how)
-- tasks.md (implementation steps)
-
-When ready to implement, run /opsx-apply
-
----
-
-**Input**: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.
-
-**Steps**
-
-1. **Check Engram for similar changes** — `mem_search` with keywords from the user's description. If a similar change was proposed or implemented before, surface it to the user. They may want to extend the existing work instead of starting fresh.
-
-2. **If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build**
-
-   Ask the user in natural language (open-ended, no preset options):
-   > "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
-
-   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
-
-   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build. After asking, stop and wait for their response.
-
-3. **Create the change directory**
-   ```bash
-   openspec new change "<name>"
-   ```
-   This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with `.openspec.yaml`.
-
-4. **Get the artifact build order**
-   ```bash
-   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
-   ```
-   Parse the JSON to get:
-   - `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
-   - `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
-
-5. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
-
-   Use the **todowrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
-
-   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
-
-   a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
-      - Get instructions:
-        ```bash
-        openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
-        ```
-      - The instructions JSON includes:
-        - `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
-        - `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
-        - `template`: The structure to use for your output file
-        - `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
-        - `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
-        - `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
-      - Read any completed dependency files for context
-      - Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
-      - Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
-      - Show brief progress: "Created <artifact-id>"
-
-   b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
-      - After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
-      - Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
-      - Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
-
-   c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
-      - Ask the user in natural language to clarify, then stop and wait for the answer
-      - Then continue with creation
-
-6. **Show final status**
-   ```bash
-   openspec status --change "<name>"
-   ```
-
-**Output**
-
-After completing all artifacts, summarize:
-- Change name and location
-- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
-- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
-- Prompt: "Run `/opsx-apply` or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."
-
-**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
-
-- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
-- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
-- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
-- Use `template` as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
-- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
-  - Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
-  - These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
-
-**Guardrails**
-- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
-- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
-- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
-- If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
-- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next
+---
+name: openspec-propose
+description: Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.3.1"
+---
+
+**IMPORTANT:** Engram is an **MCP server**, not a skill. Tools `mem_save`, `mem_search`, `mem_context` are MCP tools. Do NOT use `skill("engram")` — it doesn't exist.
+
+Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.
+
+I'll create a change with artifacts:
+- proposal.md (what & why)
+- design.md (how)
+- tasks.md (implementation steps)
+
+When ready to implement, run /opsx-apply
+
+---
+
+**Input**: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Check Engram for similar changes** — `mem_search` with keywords from the user's description. If a similar change was proposed or implemented before, surface it to the user. They may want to extend the existing work instead of starting fresh.
+
+2. **If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build**
+
+   Ask the user in natural language (open-ended, no preset options):
+   > "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
+
+   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build. After asking, stop and wait for their response.
+
+3. **Create the change directory**
+   ```bash
+   openspec new change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with `.openspec.yaml`.
+
+4. **Get the artifact build order**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to get:
+   - `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
+   - `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
+
+5. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
+
+   Use the **todowrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
+
+   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
+
+   a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
+      - Get instructions:
+        ```bash
+        openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
+        ```
+      - The instructions JSON includes:
+        - `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+        - `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+        - `template`: The structure to use for your output file
+        - `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
+        - `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
+        - `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
+      - Read any completed dependency files for context
+      - Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
+      - Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
+      - Show brief progress: "Created <artifact-id>"
+
+   b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
+      - After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
+      - Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
+      - Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
+
+   c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
+      - Ask the user in natural language to clarify, then stop and wait for the answer
+      - Then continue with creation
+
+6. **Show final status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+
+**Output**
+
+After completing all artifacts, summarize:
+- Change name and location
+- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
+- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
+- Prompt: "Run `/opsx-apply` or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."
+
+**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
+
+- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
+- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
+- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
+- Use `template` as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
+- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
+  - Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
+  - These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
+- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
+- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
+- If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
+- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next

package/assets/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,213 +1,213 @@
----
-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 rule 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.
+---
+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 rule 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.