pi-pstack-native 0.0.0-stage → 1.0.0

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/architect/references/rationale-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Rationale template
+
+The prose that ships alongside the type sketch. One page. Sentence-case headings, no boilerplate. Replace the italic notes with actual content.
+
+## Problem
+
+*One paragraph. What we're trying to do, and what about the existing system or constraints makes the shape non-obvious. If [Phase A](../SKILL.md#phase-a-ground-the-problem) surfaced constraints the design must honor (existing types to interop with, callers we can't break, invariants that crossed our boundary), name them here so the reader sees the same constraints you saw.*
+
+## Usage (caller's view)
+
+*Write this first, before the type sketch. Show the README or quickstart the consumer reads, plus two or three realistic call sites in their own code. What they import, what they call, what comes back. The type sketch in [Shape](#shape) is derived from this. The two must agree. When they diverge, reconcile the sketch to the usage, not the reverse. The caller's experience is the spec. The types serve it.*
+
+## Shape
+
+*The recommended architecture. Data structures first. Then how data flows through the signatures. Name the load-bearing decisions. State which invariants are encoded in types, where validation lives, and what the system deliberately does not do. Judge interface depth explicitly. State what complexity the public surface hides, what remains exposed to callers, and why the interface is no larger than needed. Cite the principle behind each decision (e.g., `per boundary-discipline`). Don't restate it.*
+
+## Synthesis decision
+
+*Filled in by [arena](../../arena/SKILL.md). Records which candidate became the base and why, what was adapted from each of the others, and what was rejected and why.*
+
+## Tradeoffs accepted
+
+*One bullet per tradeoff the chosen shape makes. Form: "we accept X in exchange for Y." Name anything a future reader might mistake for an oversight, including things that look like premature optimization or premature simplification.*
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+*Required. Name at least one concrete alternative shape, with one line on why it lost. Judge each alternative on interface depth, not implementation simplicity alone. Name the complexity it exposes to callers and the complexity it hides. Two or three alternatives belong here when the design space had real contenders. One is fine when the constraints forced the answer, with the conclusion phrased as "this was the only viable shape because..." Avoid listing flavors of the same shape. This section covers design alternatives the chosen shape considered and rejected, not other runner candidates.*
+
+## Open questions and risks
+
+*Things you noticed during the sketch that the human needs to weigh in on, and risks worth flagging before implementation starts. Phrase as questions, not assertions, so the human's answer is the resolution rather than a comment.*
+
+## Next implementation step
+
+*The first thing to build against the sketch. One sentence. What you'd start writing immediately after synthesis (or after Phase D sign-off, if a checkpoint was opted into).*

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/architect/references/runner-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Architect runner prompt
+
+The orchestrator passes this file through to every parallel candidate runner during Phase B and fills in the variable inputs around it: the task, the Phase A grounding artifacts, the isolated working directory, and the path to write outputs. The working directory is a git worktree when available, otherwise a per-runner subdirectory under the sketch dir. What matters is independence between candidates.
+
+You are producing one candidate design in architect's parallel exploration. Read the **architect** skill in full first. That's the workflow you're inside. Output a candidate design package: type sketch, function signatures, module map, and prose rationale shaped per [`rationale-template.md`](rationale-template.md).
+
+Apply the following discipline. The orchestrator compares candidates on these axes to pick a base.
+
+- Caller's usage first. Write the README-style usage and two or three real call sites before the types, then derive the type sketch from them. The usage is the spec. The two must agree, so reconcile the sketch to the usage, not the reverse.
+- Data structures first. Get the core types right and the code becomes obvious. Trace each dominant access pattern through the proposed structure. If the answer is "we'll add a map / index / cache later," the structure is wrong.
+- Interface depth. Compare the capability hidden behind the public surface relative to the size of that surface. Prefer a simple interface that pulls complexity into the callee, even when the implementation becomes less simple. Do not put transport or wire types on the public API. Parse into domain types behind the interface.
+- Shared state: if two actors might both write, ask "what happens?" If the answer isn't "nothing," default to per-actor state with a merge at the read boundary, per the **separate-before-serializing-shared-state** principle skill.
+- Make boundaries visible. `not implemented` errors for bodies, `// TODO` pseudocode for tricky logic, doc comments stating intent and invariants. A reader should trace data from input to output by reading types and signatures alone.
+- Encode invariants in types: hard-to-misuse types > runtime checks > prose comments, per the **encode-lessons-in-structure** principle skill.
+- Validate at boundaries, trust types inside, per the **boundary-discipline** principle skill. Business logic as pure functions. The shell stays thin.
+- Single source of truth per invariant. Derive instead of sync.
+- Idempotent state transitions where applicable, per the **make-operations-idempotent** principle skill. Ask what happens if the operation runs twice or crashes halfway.
+- Short call chains. If tracing the flow needs more than three files, flatten the hierarchy, per the **laziness-protocol** and **minimize-reader-load** principle skills.
+
+You are one of the parallel runners, each on a different model. Produce the best design your model can make. Don't hedge against the others. Differences between candidates are the signal used to pick a base and graft. Converging on a safe-looking middle defeats the exploration.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/arena/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+name: arena
+description: "Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Arena
+
+Open a todolist with one entry per phase (Frame, Fan out, Cross-judge, Pick, Graft, Verify) before launching anything.
+
+## Phase A: Frame
+
+Every candidate gets the same prompt, so the prompt is the contract.
+
+1. State the artifact each candidate is producing.
+2. Derive the rubric, 3-6 concrete gradeable criteria for what success looks like on *this* task. It is the picker's tool in Phase D. Candidates only see the task.
+3. Pick the runners. Use the `arena runners` line in `~/.cursor/rules/pstack-models.mdc`. If the rule or that line is missing, default to one each on `claude-opus-5-5-xhigh` and `grok-4.7-xhigh-fast`. An `auto` or `inherit-parent` entry in this line or the cross-judge line means the parent model, so omit `model` for it. If the Task tool rejects a configured entry, run that seat on its family's default and say so. Families go by prefix: `claude-*` and `grok-*`. With no family match, use `claude-opus-5-5-xhigh`. If it rejects a default, use the closest valid slug of the same family from its error message. Spawn more runners when the arena covers multiple design directions. Use the same model N times when the work is generation-bound rather than judgment-sensitive.
+4. Give each candidate its own output location (a git worktree where possible, otherwise `/tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/`), per the **separate-before-serializing-shared-state** principle skill.
+
+## Phase B: Fan out
+
+Spawn all N subagents in one message with `run_in_background: true`, each with the task, the path to the shared grounding, its own output path, and instructions to produce the artifact and a short rationale naming the alternatives it considered and what it rejected.
+
+If a candidate produces no output, proceed with N-1 and note the dropout.
+
+## Phase C: Cross-judge
+
+After all Phase B candidates complete, choose one model from the `arena cross-judge pool` line in `~/.cursor/rules/pstack-models.mdc`. If the rule or that line is missing, choose from `claude-opus-5-5-xhigh` and `grok-4.7-xhigh-fast`. Prefer a different model family from the parent's. Spawn one readonly judge subagent on that model. It sees the rubric and the candidates by path label, scores each criterion, and recommends a base with rationale. It runs in parallel with your reading in Phase D. Don't spawn it while candidates are still writing.
+
+## Phase D: Pick a base
+
+Read every candidate end to end before picking. Score each against the rubric criterion by criterion, not on holistic feel, and compare with the cross-judge. Agreement on the base confirms the pick. Disagreement means one of you is biased or the rubric was ambiguous. Read both rationales before deciding.
+
+Pick the base a future maintainer can extend most easily without breaking invariants. When two feel tied, prefer the cleaner boundary or smaller API, per the Laziness Protocol.
+
+## Phase E: Graft
+
+Walk each losing candidate once more for what is worth porting into the base, usually one or two things per candidate, not most of it. Fold each graft in by hand, per the **redesign-from-first-principles** principle skill, so the result stays coherent under one mental model. Don't paste mechanically.
+
+If the candidates converge on one shape, that is strong agreement. Note it and ship the consensus shape. No graft is needed. If they wildly diverge, Phase A was under-specified. Reframe and re-run rather than averaging the divergence.
+
+## Phase F: Verify
+
+Verify the synthesized artifact like any other output, per the **prove-it-works** principle skill. If verification finds a problem the arena missed, either Phase A was wrong (re-frame and re-run) or a candidate caught it and you missed the graft (go back to Phase E). Don't paper over it.
+
+## Outputs
+
+One synthesized artifact, with a short synthesis note alongside naming the base and why, the cross-judge's verdict, each graft with its source candidate, what was rejected and why, any convergence or dropouts, and the verification result.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/automate-me/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+---
+name: automate-me
+description: "Use for \"automate me\", \"create/update/refresh my -mode skill\", \"turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill\", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via create-skill + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Automate me
+
+A guided flow for turning the user's working conventions into a skill agents will follow. The output is one `-mode` skill tailored to them (e.g. `jay-mode`, `priya-mode`).
+
+This skill orchestrates three others: an inline mining pass (see step 1), Cursor's built-in `create-skill` (authoring), and the **unslop** skill (prose discipline). It sequences them. It doesn't replace them.
+
+## Flow
+
+### 0. Check for an existing skill
+
+Look recursively for `.cursor/skills/**/*-mode/SKILL.md` and `~/.cursor/skills/*-mode/SKILL.md` matching the user's handle. Mode skills can live in a personal category directory (`.cursor/skills/<handle>/`), not only at the top level. If one exists, confirm intent with `AskQuestion` (unless they already said "update my skill" or similar):
+
+- Update the existing skill (default for repeat runs)
+- Start fresh (rare, ask why before doing it)
+
+Update mode changes the rest of the flow:
+- Step 1 mines only history since the skill was last edited (`git log -1 --format=%cI <path>`).
+- Step 2 asks what's changed or missing, not what to capture from zero.
+- Step 4 edits the existing file in place. Preserve sections the user hasn't contradicted. Revise ones with new evidence. Add new sections only for genuinely new rules.
+
+### 1. Mine their history
+
+Locate the active workspace's transcripts before fanning out. The system prompt names the workspace's `agent-transcripts/` directory. Use only that path. Don't glob across `~/.cursor/projects/*/`. That crosses workspace boundaries and reads private chats from unrelated projects.
+
+Survey recent agent conversations within that scope for recurring patterns. Run multiple parallel subagents across slices of history (e.g. last 2-4 weeks, split into 3 slices so each has enough material). Each slice mining subagent reads transcripts from the workspace-scoped path the parent provides, looks for the signals below, and returns a short structured list of patterns it saw with evidence pointers. Default signals worth hunting:
+
+- Response preferences (length, tone, format, "dumb it down" corrections)
+- Delegation habits (subagents, models, specialized workflows, parallelism)
+- Verification posture (what "done" means, unit tests vs live repro, reviewers)
+- Code and prose discipline (style, principles cited, lint/format tools)
+- Process conventions (worktrees, commits, PRs, review/merge tooling)
+- Meta preferences (fixing skills mid-task, proposing new ones)
+
+Cross-check across slices before elevating a signal. Patterns seen in 2+ slices are high-confidence. Lone signals are weak and usually get dropped.
+
+### 2. Ask the user directly
+
+Mining misses intent that hasn't come up yet. Use the `AskQuestion` tool (structured multi-choice) rather than asking the user to type from scratch.
+
+Shape: one or two questions with 4-6 options each, `allow_multiple: true` for category questions. Start broad ("Which areas matter most?"), then follow up on selected areas with specific options. After the structured rounds, one free-form chat question catches anything the options missed.
+
+Don't dump 20 questions.
+
+### 3. Cluster findings
+
+Group the combined signals into sections. Common ones (use only what applies):
+
+- **Response style**: length, tone, format.
+- **Autonomy**: how much to do without asking, MCP tool use.
+- **Understand first**: which skills to reach for when scoping or investigating a change.
+- **Subagents**: default, parallelism, model-to-task, specialized workflows.
+- **Prose / code discipline**: principles, lint tools, style guides.
+- **Review and verify**: repro posture, verification skills, live-testing tools.
+- **Process**: git worktrees, commits, PRs, review/merge tooling.
+- **Skills**: skill-authoring habits, fix-the-skill-first, proposing new skills.
+
+The **poteto-mode** skill shows the shape. Read it for granularity. Don't copy its content. The user's rules are not the same as poteto-mode's.
+
+### 4. Draft the skill
+
+Use Cursor's built-in `create-skill` skill to author the skill. Placement:
+
+- Path: preserve an existing mode skill's category. For a new mode, use `.cursor/skills/<handle>/<handle>-mode/SKILL.md` when the repo has an established personal category for that handle. Otherwise default to `.cursor/skills/<handle>-mode/SKILL.md` in the project (or `~/.cursor/skills/<handle>-mode/` if the user prefers a personal skill).
+- Handle: the user's first name or chosen identifier.
+- Frontmatter `description`: trigger on their name + `/<handle>-mode` + "work in their style", not on generic keywords like "write code" or "review PR".
+- Frontmatter formatting: follow `create-skill`'s YAML rules. Keep `description` as one YAML scalar. Quote it or use `description: >-` with indented continuation lines when punctuation or wrapping requires it.
+- Frontmatter `disable-model-invocation: true` by default. Opt out only if the user explicitly wants their mode to apply on every turn.
+
+### 5. Iterate on prose
+
+Apply the **unslop** skill and `create-skill`'s writing guidelines to every line.
+
+Show the draft to the user and take feedback. Expect multiple iterations. Cut ruthlessly. A mode skill is not a manual.
+
+### 6. Land it
+
+Work in a worktree off main. Commit and open a PR. Don't push to main directly.
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- **Don't overfit to one conversation.** A preference stated once and contradicted another time is noise. Require multiple instances before codifying it.
+- **Don't be clever.** Restating other skills' contents, inventing metaphors, or writing "poetic" prose for an agent reader is cost without benefit. Keep it operational.
+- **Reference, don't inline.** Other skills the user relies on should appear as path references, not pasted excerpts. Same for any principle docs they maintain elsewhere.
+- **Keep sections minimal.** Only add a section if the user has a specific, non-default rule there. "Communicate clearly" is not a section. "Short paragraphs. Tables when comparing options. Bullets only when items are genuinely parallel." is.
+- **Name conventions generic.** Use "the user" or "the human" in imperatives, not the author's first name.
+- **Don't force symmetry.** If a user has no process rules worth writing down, skip the Process section entirely.
+
+## Evaluation
+
+A `-mode` skill is subjective output. A `create-skill`-style test/iterate benchmark loop isn't useful here. Vibe-check with the user: does it read like them? Did it miss anything? Then ship.
+
+Run a description-optimization loop only if the skill's trigger accuracy turns out to be a problem in practice.
+
+## When not to use
+
+- User wants a task-specific skill (not working conventions): `create-skill` alone, no mining required.
+- User wants to capture one narrow workflow (e.g. "how I write commit messages"). That's a regular skill, not a mode skill.
+

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/benchmark-checklist/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+name: benchmark-checklist
+description: "Vet a perf measurement (limiter, tuning, limits, errors, repeatability, relevance, and whether the work happened) before you report or act on it. Use when you run a benchmark or report a speedup or regression you measured."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Benchmark checklist
+
+Use this when you produce a performance number: a PR's before and after, a regression claim, a hillclimb harness, or a library or config choice. Answer each question with evidence from a run, not a guess about the code.
+
+For a quick ballpark the user asked for, one run is enough. Still check questions 4 and 7, and say that it is one run. Skip the rest unless that run looks wrong. A choice between options is never a ballpark.
+
+## Before you run anything
+
+- Write down the claim you expect to make, in the words you would ship ("export is 30% faster at p50 on the 60k-row dataset"). The questions test that sentence.
+- Read the measurement script. Note what it times, counts, and ignores.
+- Check the load average with `uptime` and the core count with `nproc`. If the machine is busy, find out what is running. If you cannot stop it, interleave the sides so both see the same noise, and say so in the report.
+
+## The questions
+
+1. **Why not double?** Name the limiter. Profile in a run you do not report, because profilers and tracers slow the work down. Use CPU per process (`top`, `pidstat`), a runtime profiler (`node --cpu-prof`, `py-spy`, `perf`), I/O wait, and syscall counts (`strace -c` on Linux), then map the hot spot to source. Watch the load generator too: if it saturates first, you measured the load generator. If a change did not move the number, the limiter explains why, so find it before you call the change useless.
+2. **Was it tuned?** Run every side the way production runs it: release builds, production flags and env, batching and transaction settings, connection pools, caches as warm or cold as production sees them, and the same versions and data. If one side runs on defaults, you compared configurations, not implementations. A limiter that is a setting (a commit per row, a debug build, a missing index) means that side is untuned. Tune it and measure again before you pick a winner. If you cannot tune it, do not pick a winner from that run. When the user is choosing what to adopt, narrowing the claim to the code as it ships today does not fix this, because they adopt the option, not today's settings.
+3. **Did it break limits?** Do the arithmetic. Compare bytes per second with disk and network bandwidth, operations per second times cost per operation with your cores, and the time saved with the time the changed piece took. Removing a piece that takes 10% of the run can make the run at most about 11% faster. A result past a limit measured something other than the work, such as a cache, a no-op, or a bug.
+4. **Did it error?** Count failures and non-success responses, and check that outputs are correct, not just present. Rejections are often fast, and timeouts and retries are slow. If the script does not count errors, add the count.
+5. **Does it reproduce?** Run each side at least 5 times, alternating (A, B, A, B, and so on) so warmup, lazy initialization, caches, and drift favor neither. Report the median and range. A gap smaller than the run-to-run variation is no measurable difference. When the call is close, use a rank-sum test or the harness's own statistics.
+6. **Does it matter?** Next to any micro result, measure the end-to-end path a user waits on, with realistic data sizes and concurrency, and report the micro result as a share of the whole. A helper that takes 1% of a request can make the request at most 1% faster, however fast the helper gets.
+7. **Did it even happen?** Confirm the work ran inside the timed region: the request reached the server, the rows were written, the bytes were read, and the code used the result. Lazy code (generators nobody iterates, promises nobody awaits, results the JIT can discard) and timeouts produce numbers for work that never happened.
+
+## Report
+
+- Lead with the verdict: faster, slower, no measurable difference, or inconclusive.
+- Give the number with its unit, the run count, the range, and the limiter. For example, "p50 41 ms → 33 ms, median of 7 runs per side, range 32 to 35 ms after, bound by JSON parsing on one core."
+- Call the verdict inconclusive when you claim a difference but cannot name the limiter, when a side ran untuned, or when you could not check questions 4 and 7. Name the gap.
+- Keep a PR body to one primary number, per the **Opening a PR** playbook. Put the runs, range, and limiter evidence in a linked artifact or notes file.
+
+## Other perf material
+
+- Vet the **Perf issue** playbook's baseline before the playbook plans from it, and every number after that.
+- Vet the **Hillclimb** playbook's harness before it is frozen. The frozen harness then prints error and work counts, so each keep-or-revert checks questions 4 and 7 for free.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/blast-radius/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+name: blast-radius
+description: "Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', or reviewing a small diff you don't trust."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Blast radius
+
+Find what a change breaks somewhere else, before it ships. Use for "blast radius of X", "what could this break", or reviewing a small diff you don't trust yet.
+
+Companion to `how` and `why`. `how` tells you what the code does. `why` tells you why it's shaped that way. Blast radius tells you what it breaks somewhere else.
+
+Listing the callers is not the job. The agent can grep those in a second. The job is the breakage grep won't show you.
+
+## Don't trust your own writeup
+
+A blast-radius writeup that sounds right is worthless. It reads as convincing whether or not it's true. So don't hand back the writeup. Find the one or two facts the whole thing depends on and prove them by running code.
+
+### How sure are you
+
+For each fact the change's safety depends on, get it as far down this list as is cheap, and say where it stopped.
+
+1. You said so. Worthless on its own.
+2. You pointed at the line. A real `file:line`, or the library's own source.
+3. You showed the bad case can't happen. You walked the failure step by step and it doesn't reach.
+4. You ran it. A script or test that calls the real code and fails loud if you're wrong.
+5. You reproduced it in the running app.
+
+Step 4 is usually one small script that imports the same library the app ships and calls the exact function you're worried about.
+
+## Steps
+
+1. Read the change. The diff, the symbols it adds, changes, and deletes, and what it now does differently, including the part the diff doesn't spell out. Use `why` step 2 to pull the PR and commits.
+2. Find the one fact it's safe because of. Most changes that look risky are safe because of a single fact, like "this call only drops already-dead cache entries and does nothing else". Find that fact. If it holds, most risky cases are cleared at once. Spend your time here, not on a long list of maybes.
+3. Look where grep stops. Read the source of the library you call, and check its pinned version and any local patch. Work out when things run: microtasks, unmount and teardown, Solid versus React. Follow what a symbol search misses: the JSON an API returns, a DB column, a wire format, another language reading the same bytes, a feature flag, code three hops downstream.
+4. Be honest about each risk. Give it a real chance of happening and a real cost if it does. Keep the risks you confirmed. List the ones you checked and cleared separately. Same rules as `why`. Cite a real `file:line`, a search that finds nothing is still an answer, and never make up a caller or an API.
+5. Prove the one fact. Write a script or test that runs the real code, run it, and paste what happened.
+6. For a big or wide change, run it as an `arena`. Ask more than one model the same question and merge the answers. Different models catch different real bugs.
+
+## What to hand back
+
+- **What it does.** What changed, including the part that isn't obvious.
+- **The one fact it's safe because of.** State it, say which step you got it to, and show the proof. If you couldn't prove it, write unproven.
+- **Risks.** Each names how it breaks, the `file:line`, how likely and how bad, and how to check. Paste the proof for the ones that matter.
+- **Cleared.** What you checked and why it's fine.
+- **Before you merge.** The cheapest test or repro that catches the real bug, including the script you wrote.
+
+Write it through `unslop`, cite real code, and strip anything private before it goes anywhere public.
+
+**Reply:** the writeup above, with the one safety fact either proven or marked unproven.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/bro/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+name: bro
+description: Restate the last message in plain human language, with no jargon.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+Restate your last message. Stop using jargon and speak coherently. State it more simply and concisely, like one human talking to another.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/correct/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+name: correct
+description: "Find the mistakes agents keep repeating in this repo and make each one impossible. Try architecture first, then types, then a lint whose error names the fix, then a test, and write docs last. Prove each check fails on a real past mistake. Repeat this each time the operator corrects you. Use for /correct."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Correct
+
+The operator keeps correcting agents in this repo for the same mistakes. Change the repo so the next agent can't make them.
+
+Assume every contributor is an agent that sees only the files it opened, copies the nearest example, and takes the shortest path that compiles. Design the repo so a change that looks right from one file is right for the whole repo.
+
+## Find the mistake classes
+
+First, read recent commits, reverts, review comments, agent instruction files, and comments that explain workarounds. Group the mistakes into classes. A class counts once it has happened twice.
+
+## Fix each class at the highest level that works
+
+1. **Eliminate it with architecture.** Give each piece of state one owner and each task one supported way. Hide internals so the wrong import fails. Replace hand-synced lists with one source of truth. Delete old ways and dead code an agent would copy.
+2. **Enforce it with types so the bad state can't be written.** If bad code still compiles, add a lint or CI check whose error names the file, type, or function to use instead. If the pattern is already common, fail only when a change adds more.
+3. **Test the behavior.** Fix or delete any test that would still pass if every function it calls returned nothing.
+4. **Write docs or agent rules last, only for judgment calls.** Nothing fails when an agent skips them.
+
+## Fix and prove
+
+Then fix the most frequent classes now, one commit each. Prove each new check fails on a real past mistake. Run the same command locally and in CI. Exceptions go on the offending line with a reason, an expiry date, and a human's approval.
+
+## Keep the rule table
+
+Last, keep a table in the agent instruction file that pairs each rule with what enforces it. When the operator corrects you, fix the mistake and add the rule. If the rule was already there and nothing enforces it, that's a repeat, so fix it at the highest level in the same change. Drop a rule once its mistake can't happen.
+
+**Reply:** each class with its evidence, the level you picked, and why a higher level didn't work.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/create-verification-skill/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+name: create-verification-skill
+description: "Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, \"make a control skill for this repo\", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Create a verification skill
+
+Every serious project needs a scripted way to drive the real app and prove behavior: launch it, exercise a feature the way a user would, and capture evidence. This skill generates that as a project-local skill (`.cursor/skills/verify-<app>/`) tailored to the repo. You write the generator's output for the next agent, not for a human: it will be read cold, mid-task, by an agent that has never seen the app.
+
+## 1. Interview the repo, not the user
+
+Answer these from the codebase and only ask the user what you cannot observe:
+
+- **Surface:** what does a user actually touch? A web UI, a CLI/TUI, a desktop app, an API, a mobile app, a library? A repo can have several; pick the primary one and note the rest.
+- **Run:** how does the app start locally? Prefer the repo's own documented dev command (package scripts, Makefile, README quickstart). Note ports, env vars, seed data, auth.
+- **Drive:** how can an agent interact with it programmatically? Existing harnesses first — Playwright/Cypress specs, expect scripts, PTY helpers, curl-able endpoints, a debug port. Only then pick a generic recipe: browser/CDP for web and Electron, a tmux/PTY harness for CLI/TUI, plain HTTP for services.
+- **Observe:** what evidence can be captured? Screenshots, terminal transcripts, response bodies, logs, exit codes, DB state.
+- **Isolate:** can two instances run side by side (ports, data dirs, profiles)? If not, say so in the generated skill: refusing to double-drive a shared instance beats corrupting the user's session.
+
+If the checkout doesn't build or start as-is, fix that first (or report it precisely) before generating; a skill written against a broken base teaches wrong steps. When an irrelevant missing asset blocks startup (a static dir the API never serves, a sample config), the generated skill may create it, clearly marked as verification scaffolding, and remove it in cleanup.
+
+## 2. Generate the skill
+
+Write `.cursor/skills/verify-<app>/SKILL.md` with YAML frontmatter (`name: verify-<app>` and a `description` that names the app, the surface, and when to reach for it — without frontmatter the skill never registers) and these sections, each grounded in what the interview actually found (no placeholders left):
+
+- **Launch:** the exact command that starts the app for verification, and how to tell it's ready (a log line, a port answering, a prompt). Include teardown. For a short-lived CLI or TUI there is no server to keep alive: launch means build the binary (or install deps) once, then start each drive in its own isolated PTY or tmux session.
+- **Doctor:** one read-only check that answers "is this instance worth driving?" — process up, right version/build, port owned by us, auth valid. An agent runs this first whenever anything looks off.
+- **Drive:** the harness recipe with real selectors/commands from this repo, not examples. Prefer stable handles (ARIA labels, data attributes, prompt strings, route paths) over coordinates and tab order.
+- **Evidence:** what to capture for a proof and where it goes. State the proof standards: exercise the real user path, not internal setters or test-only endpoints; capture the action and the resulting state, not just the final screen; verify side effects (files written, rows inserted, messages sent) alongside what's visible; mocks only where a production boundary already isolates the external system. When the safe path is a dry-run or test mode, verify what it actually skips by observing (files, network, git refs) rather than trusting its name: some dry-runs still touch the network or open a browser.
+- **Cleanup:** how to tear down instances the run created. Never kill by process name; kill what you started. Cleanup removes instances and scratch state, never the evidence: proof artifacts survive the teardown, in a location the skill names.
+- **Helpers:** any script the skill ships is executable and its invocation is shown in the skill body. A helper the reader has to reverse-engineer is not a helper.
+
+## 3. Seed the feature map
+
+Create `.cursor/skills/verify-<app>/features/README.md` plus one file per user-facing feature you can identify (aim for the top 3-5 to start, from routes, commands, menus, or docs). Follow the shape in [`references/feature-map-example/`](references/feature-map-example/), with a README index and one file per feature. Each file answers, from the user's point of view: what the feature is, how to reach it, how to drive it with the harness, and what observable end state proves it works. The four H2s are `Sub-features`, `How to get to it (user POV)`, `Driving it with <harness>`, and `Gotchas`. The map is the repo's maintained verification source; a proof that drives one convenient entry point is incomplete when the map lists others.
+
+## 4. Prove the generated skill before handing it over
+
+Run its own instructions end to end once: launch, doctor, drive ONE mapped feature (one is enough; the map exists so later runs can cover the rest), capture evidence, clean up. After cleanup, confirm the evidence still exists at the named location — a cleanup that eats the proof fails this step. Fix what fails, and run the generated cleanup after every failed iteration too, so broken attempts don't strand processes and ports. A generated skill that was never executed is a draft, not a deliverable.
+
+## 5. Offer the maintenance loop
+
+Point the user at `/maintain-verification-skill` for keeping the map honest as the app changes. Suggest a cadence only if they ask.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/create-verification-skill/references/feature-map-example/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Notes verification map
+
+This directory is the maintained source for verifying the user-facing behavior of Notes. Read the index before driving the app, then use the matching feature file as the recipe.
+
+## Baseline preconditions
+
+- Launch Notes at `http://127.0.0.1:4173` with a disposable data directory.
+- Set `NOTES_DATA_DIR=/tmp/notes-verify-$RUN_ID` so concurrent runs do not share state.
+- Seed notes titled `Quarterly plan` and `Grocery list`.
+- Put `control-notes` and the `notes` CLI on `PATH`.
+- Run `control-notes doctor` and require the expected URL, data directory, and build revision.
+- Never drive an instance that was not started by this verification run.
+
+## Driving conventions
+
+- Start every recipe from the baseline state unless its preconditions say otherwise.
+- Prefer ARIA roles and accessible names over CSS selectors or DOM position.
+- Treat every command as literal. Keep quoted names and flags unchanged.
+- Run browser actions through `control-notes browser`.
+- Run terminal actions through `control-notes cli -- <command>`.
+- Restore seeded data after a mutation. Do not remove proof artifacts during cleanup.
+
+## Proof and skip reporting
+
+- Capture the user action and the resulting state, not only the final screen.
+- UI proof includes an ARIA snapshot and a screenshot with the app identity visible.
+- CLI proof includes the command, stdout, stderr, and exit code.
+- Mutation proof includes a read-only second view of the stored value.
+- Record the feature ID and entry point used with every artifact.
+- Report an unreachable path with the attempted command and the unmet precondition.
+- Do not report a skipped entry point as verified through a different path.
+
+## Feature entry contract
+
+Each feature file starts with an H1 title and one paragraph describing the user-visible behavior. It then uses exactly four H2 sections in this order.
+
+1. `Sub-features` lists short IDs with one line for each behavior.
+2. `How to get to it (user POV)` lists every user entry point.
+3. `Driving it with <harness>` starts with `Preconditions:` and uses labeled bullets that pair each user action with an exact command and observable result.
+4. `Gotchas` lists traps that can waste or invalidate a verification run.
+
+Keep implementation details out of the map. Name only user paths, stable handles, required state, commands, and observable proof.
+
+## Features
+
+- [Create a note](./create-note.md) covers browser and CLI creation, cancellation, persistence, and cleanup.
+- [Search notes](./search.md) covers toolbar, keyboard, and CLI search with matching, empty, and clear states.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/create-verification-skill/references/feature-map-example/create-note.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# Create a note
+
+Create note lets a user save a titled note from the browser or CLI, cancel an unfinished draft, and confirm the saved note from a second user-facing view.
+
+## Sub-features
+
+- `create-open` opens a blank editor from each browser entry point.
+- `create-save` persists a title and body.
+- `create-cancel` discards an unfinished browser draft.
+- `create-cli` creates the same note shape from the terminal.
+
+## How to get to it (user POV)
+
+- Choose the `New note` button in the browser toolbar.
+- Press `n` in the browser while focus is outside an editable field.
+- Run `notes create --title <title> --body <body>` in a terminal.
+
+## Driving it with control-notes
+
+Preconditions:
+
+- Notes is healthy at `http://127.0.0.1:4173`.
+- No note is titled `Release checklist`.
+- `control-notes doctor` reports the expected URL and disposable data directory.
+
+- **Open editor.** Choose `New note`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "New note"`. A form named `Note editor` appears with focus in the `Title` textbox.
+- **Enter content.** Type the title and body. Run `control-notes browser fill --role textbox --name "Title" --value "Release checklist"` and `control-notes browser fill --role textbox --name "Body" --value "Tag and publish"`. The `Save note` button becomes enabled.
+- **Save note.** Choose `Save note`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Save note"`. A status named `Note saved` appears and the heading reads `Release checklist`.
+- **Confirm persistence.** Return to the note list and reopen the note. Run `control-notes browser click --role link --name "All notes"` and `control-notes browser click --role link --name "Release checklist"`. The editor shows both saved values.
+- **Cancel draft.** Open a new note, enter `Discard me`, and choose `Cancel`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "New note"`, `control-notes browser fill --role textbox --name "Title" --value "Discard me"`, and `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Cancel"`. The note list returns and has no `Discard me` link.
+- **CLI entry.** Create a second note. Run `control-notes cli -- notes create --title "CLI note" --body "Created from terminal" --format json`. Exit code `0` and stdout contain the new note ID and title.
+- **Proof.** Reopen both saved notes from `All notes`. Run `control-notes browser snapshot --aria --path artifacts/create-note/list.aria.txt` and `control-notes browser screenshot --path artifacts/create-note/list.png`. The artifacts show `Release checklist` and `CLI note`.
+
+## Gotchas
+
+- Pressing `n` while a textbox has focus types the character instead of opening a new editor.
+- Titles are trimmed on save. Assert the rendered title, not the draft input value.
+- A save status alone is insufficient proof. Reopen the note from the list.
+- Remove `Release checklist` and `CLI note` during fixture cleanup, but retain their proof artifacts.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/create-verification-skill/references/feature-map-example/search.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Search notes
+
+Search lets a user find notes by title or body text, inspect a matching note, and distinguish no matches from an unavailable search.
+
+## Sub-features
+
+- `search-open` opens search from each supported browser entry point.
+- `search-match` returns title and body matches without changing note data.
+- `search-open-result` opens a result in the note editor.
+- `search-empty` shows a complete empty state for a query with no matches.
+- `search-clear` removes the query and restores the recent-notes view.
+- `search-cli` returns the same matching notes from the terminal.
+
+## How to get to it (user POV)
+
+- Choose the `Search` button in the browser toolbar.
+- Press `/` in the browser while focus is outside an editable field.
+- Run `notes search <query>` in a terminal.
+
+## Driving it with control-notes
+
+Preconditions:
+
+- Notes is healthy at `http://127.0.0.1:4173`.
+- The disposable data directory contains `Quarterly plan` with body text `Draft budget`.
+- `control-notes doctor` reports the expected URL and data directory.
+
+- **Toolbar entry.** Choose the `Search` button. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Search"`. A dialog named `Search notes` appears with focus in its searchbox.
+- **Keyboard entry.** Close the dialog, focus the page, and press `/`. Run `control-notes browser press --key "/"`. The same dialog appears and the page does not insert a slash.
+- **Title match.** Type `quarterly`. Run `control-notes browser fill --role searchbox --name "Search notes" --value "quarterly"`. The `Search results` list contains `Quarterly plan` and does not contain `Grocery list`.
+- **Body match.** Replace the query with `budget`. Run `control-notes browser fill --role searchbox --name "Search notes" --value "budget"`. The result `Quarterly plan` remains visible with a body-match excerpt.
+- **Open result.** Choose `Quarterly plan`. Run `control-notes browser click --role link --name "Quarterly plan"`. The dialog closes and the editor heading reads `Quarterly plan`.
+- **Empty state.** Reopen search and enter `volcano`. Run `control-notes browser fill --role searchbox --name "Search notes" --value "volcano"`. A status named `No matching notes` appears after search completes.
+- **Clear query.** Choose `Clear search`. Run `control-notes browser click --role button --name "Clear search"`. The searchbox is empty and the `Recent notes` region replaces the result list.
+- **CLI match.** Search from the terminal. Run `control-notes cli -- notes search "quarterly" --format json`. Exit code `0` and stdout contain one object whose title is `Quarterly plan`.
+- **CLI miss.** Search for an absent value. Run `control-notes cli -- notes search "volcano" --format json`. Exit code `0` and stdout are `[]`.
+- **Proof.** Capture the populated result state. Run `control-notes browser snapshot --aria --path artifacts/search/results.aria.txt` and `control-notes browser screenshot --path artifacts/search/results.png`. Both artifacts identify Notes, the query, and `Quarterly plan`.
+
+## Gotchas
+
+- Pressing `/` while the editor or searchbox has focus inserts text instead of opening search.
+- Results update after a short debounce. Wait for the results list or empty status, not a fixed sleep.
+- Archived notes are excluded unless the user enables `Include archived`.
+- The CLI defaults to human-readable output. Use `--format json` for stable assertions.
+- Opening a result changes browser state. Reopen search before proving another query.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/figure-it-out/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: figure-it-out
+description: "Design an auditable playbook when no narrower one fits: a large migration, an ambitious multi-part change, or work a human reviews after stepping away. Scales rigor to the task, runs a hypothesis loop, and logs decisions. Use for /figure-it-out or 'figure it out'."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Figure it out
+
+When the task matches no playbook, design one. The deliverable before any code is the workflow itself: a sequence of phases that scales rigor to the task, runs the scientific method, and leaves a decision trail a human can audit after stepping away.
+
+## Start
+
+Open a todolist whose first item is to read the Principles section of the **poteto-mode** skill. Then add the phases below as todos.
+
+## Phase A: Frame
+
+Ground first, then commit. Don't start the run until you can state:
+
+- The definition of done as a falsifiable predicate (the **prove-it-works** principle skill).
+- Scope, quantified: rough units and effort, plus the blockers grounding surfaced.
+- The rigor level, biased high. One-way doors and high blast radius get more. Reversible low-stakes steps get less. Rigor is gates and artifacts, not "try harder".
+
+Present the framing and tradeoffs before committing to a long run. Reversible work proceeds (the **never-block-on-the-human** principle skill), but a multi-hour run earns one checkpoint.
+
+## Phase B: Design the workflow
+
+Decompose into atomic, independently-landable units. Sequence riskiest-unknown-first. Scaffold and verification come before features (the **foundational-thinking** principle skill).
+
+- Build the verification harness before the work, with the baseline captured from the pre-change state, so the check reads as "old value vs new value".
+- For one-way-door design decisions, run the **architect** skill (it runs **arena**). Skip it for mechanical work whose shape is already concrete. A second arena over a settled design is over-engineering (the **laziness-protocol** principle skill).
+- Decide what fans out. Parallelize only across seams, and give each worker its own worktree or branch (the **separate-before-serializing-shared-state** principle skill). Don't over-fan.
+- Write the designed phase list down. That list is what the human reviews.
+
+Then execute the design. Add its steps to the todolist as concrete items between the Phase C and Phase D entries. Run each under the Phase C loop discipline, and weave the Phase D log through them, a row as each step lands, rather than saving the whole trail for the end.
+
+## Phase C: Run the loop
+
+Each unit is an experiment. State the hypothesis, make the smallest change, measure against the predicate on the real artifact, keep it if it advanced, revert it if it didn't. Apply the **sequence-verifiable-units** principle skill, verifying each unit before starting the next instead of batching checks at the end.
+
+- Verify by inspecting the artifact, never a self-report. When something passes too easily, suspect the observation method before the system.
+- Pair delegated work with a judge. If a worker games the gate, reset and harden the contract. If the gate itself is wrong, fix the gate in its own change rather than routing around it.
+- A verdict is VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE. Inconclusive is not a pass. Don't hide a negative.
+
+## Phase D: Keep the audit trail
+
+Log the run via the **show-me-your-work** skill. figure-it-out's work is usually ambitious enough to commit the trail so the reviewer can read it in the PR. The trail plus the diff is what lets the human come back and trust the work.
+
+## Phase E: Verify and hand back
+
+Check the whole against the Phase A predicate on the real product, not just the harness. Encode any recurring correction as a gate, a lint rule, a check, or a script (the **encode-lessons-in-structure** principle skill).
+
+**Reply:** the playbook you designed, the rigor level and why, the decision-trail path, what's verified against the predicate, and what's still open.