pi-pstack-native 0.0.0-stage → 1.0.0

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.17/pstack/skills/why/references/synthesizer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+# Synthesizer Prompt Template
+
+Fill in the placeholders.
+
+---
+
+You are answering a "why" question about a piece of code by synthesizing findings from investigators who searched different historical sources (source control, issue / ticket tracker, long-form documents, real-time team chat, infrastructure observability, error / exception tracking, product analytics warehouse, and code comments). Produce a confidence-weighted, evidence-cited narrative that says honestly what the evidence supports, and just as honestly what it doesn't.
+
+## The Question
+
+> {QUESTION}
+
+## The Code Anchor
+
+**Target files:** {FILES_WITH_LINE_RANGES}
+
+**Key symbols:** {SYMBOLS}
+
+## Investigator Findings
+
+{ALL_INVESTIGATOR_FINDINGS}
+
+## Sources That Weren't Searched
+
+{SKIPPED_SOURCES_WITH_REASONS}
+
+## Epistemics Framework
+
+You MUST follow `references/epistemics.md`. Read it in full before writing. The key rules:
+
+1. Every claim must sit in one tier: **Direct**, **Supported**, **Inferred**, **Speculative**, **Unknown**. The tier sets its section and its phrasing.
+2. Every Direct/Supported claim must have a citation (PR #, ticket ID, doc URL, chat permalink, commit hash, or file:line).
+3. Inferred and Speculative claims must use hedged language ("appears to", "likely", "suggests", "one possibility is").
+4. Never cite code as evidence for its own intent.
+5. Document gaps. Don't fill them with plausible-sounding guesses.
+6. Treat a hypothesis embedded in the user's question as a candidate, not a conclusion. Check it independently.
+
+## Instructions
+
+1. **Read all investigator findings** and weigh the evidence yourself. Investigators gathered raw evidence, not conclusions.
+2. **Merge overlaps.** When several investigators cite the same PR, ticket, or doc, give it one authoritative reference.
+3. **Surface contradictions.** When two items disagree, show both. Don't pick one.
+4. **Calibrate each claim.** Find its evidence and tier. Direct: cite it and state it plainly. Inferred: hedge it and show the inference. Speculative: mark it. No evidence: put it in the gaps.
+5. **Verify citations by spot-checking.** If you're uncertain a cited item exists or says what the investigator claims, check it by reading the codebase or calling MCP tools. Don't propagate errors. Do not write files, commit, or modify external state.
+6. **Don't overreach.** The user will act on this. Leave an open question open rather than fill it with a confident guess.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write for the user, in this exact structure:
+
+---
+
+### The Question
+
+Restate the user's question in one or two sentences.
+
+### The Code in Question
+
+File paths, line ranges, key symbols. Two or three lines to orient a cold reader.
+
+### What We Found
+
+Claims with textual evidence, each quoted or paraphrased and cited precisely:
+
+- **[Direct]** {Claim}. Source: [PR #123](url) / ticket ID / file:line. {Brief quote or paraphrase.}
+- **[Supported]** {Claim}. Evidence: {list of items and what each contributes}.
+
+`[Direct]` is single-source, explicit evidence. `[Supported]` is multiple indirect items converging on a conclusion.
+
+### What We Can Reasonably Infer
+
+Claims stated nowhere but well-supported by indirect evidence. Each bullet must make the inference chain visible ("Given A and B, it's likely that C") and must use hedged language ("appears to", "likely", "suggests", "is consistent with"):
+
+- **[Inferred]** {Hedged claim}. Reasoning: {the specific evidence and the inference step}.
+
+Skip this section if there's nothing to infer.
+
+### Competing Hypotheses
+
+If the evidence fits multiple stories, present each. Don't force a winner the record doesn't support. For each hypothesis:
+
+- **Hypothesis:** {one-sentence statement}
+- **Evidence for:** {specific items}
+- **Evidence against or missing:** {what would need to be true but isn't, or what counter-signals exist}
+
+Skip this section if there's a single clear answer.
+
+### What We Don't Know
+
+Specific gaps: "We searched the issue tracker for [query1], [query2], [query3] and found no issue discussing the rate-limit threshold", not "We don't know why." Include:
+
+- Questions that went unanswered
+- Searches that returned nothing
+- Sources that were unavailable, and why (such as a missing real-time team chat MCP)
+- People who would likely know but whom you can't ask
+
+### Sources Consulted
+
+What was actually searched, so the user can judge coverage and redirect:
+
+- **Source control history**: {file paths}, {number of commits reviewed}, PRs #{numbers}, and code comments searched. Or "Not searched. This should not happen because git and `gh` are always expected."
+- **Issue / ticket tracker**: {ticket IDs and keyword searches}. Or "Not searched. No matching MCP available in this environment."
+- **Long-form documents**: {page titles and search queries}. Or "Not searched. No matching MCP available in this environment."
+- **Real-time team chat**: {channels searched, date ranges, queries}. Or "Not searched. No matching MCP available in this environment."
+- **Infrastructure observability**: {dashboards, monitors, metrics, logs, traces, or incidents searched}. Or "Not searched. No matching MCP available in this environment."
+- **Error / exception tracking**: {issues, events, or releases searched}. Or "Not searched. No matching MCP available in this environment."
+- **Product analytics warehouse**: {fully-qualified tables queried, the time windows, and the numeric summaries (counts, percentiles, first/last-seen timestamps) that bore on the question}. Or "Not searched. No matching MCP available in this environment."
+
+### Confidence Summary
+
+One or two sentences on overall confidence, e.g.:
+
+> "The core rationale (A) is well-supported by direct PR and ticket evidence. The specific threshold value (100) is inferred from the surrounding context but not explicitly documented. The question of whether this was driven by a customer request could not be answered. No relevant issue tracker or long-form doc content surfaced, and real-time team chat search was unavailable."
+
+---
+
+## Quality Check Before Returning
+
+Revise if any item fails:
+
+1. Does every claim in "What We Found" have a citation? If not, add one or move it to "Inferred" or "Hypotheses."
+2. Is the phrasing tier-appropriate? (Direct claims can use "because". Inferred claims cannot.)
+3. Did you surface every contradiction you noticed, or quietly pick one?
+4. Does "What We Don't Know" name specific gaps? If it's empty or missing, be suspicious. Historical investigations almost always have gaps.
+5. Did you check any hypothesis embedded in the question against the evidence rather than rubber-stamp it?
+6. Did you cite code as evidence for its own intent? Remove it. Code is mechanics, not motivation.
+7. Is the tone calibrated? A confident-sounding answer on weak evidence is the exact failure this skill exists to prevent.
+
+The value of this output is its honesty, not its authority. A reader who takes it to the original author, an engineering lead, or a product manager should know what's known, what's inferred, and what's missing, so they can ask the right follow-up questions. Optimize for being useful, not for looking decisive.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.32/pstack/.cursor-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+	"name": "pstack",
+	"displayName": "pstack",
+	"version": "0.15.32",
+	"description": "if you want to go fast, go deep first. pstack helps you write less, but higher quality code. rigorous agent workflows you can parallelize with confidence.",
+	"author": {
+		"name": "Lauren Tan"
+	},
+	"homepage": "https://github.com/cursor/plugins/tree/main/pstack",
+	"repository": "https://github.com/cursor/plugins",
+	"license": "MIT",
+	"logo": "assets/logo.png",
+	"keywords": [
+		"pstack",
+		"poteto-mode",
+		"workflow",
+		"principles",
+		"agent-style",
+		"subagents",
+		"unslop"
+	],
+	"category": "developer-tools",
+	"tags": [
+		"workflow",
+		"principles",
+		"review",
+		"planning"
+	],
+	"skills": "./skills/",
+	"agents": "./agents/"
+}

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.32/pstack/LICENSE

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

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.32/pstack/skills/architect/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: architect
+description: "Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in. Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Architect
+
+Sketch types, function signatures, class shapes, and module boundaries with `not implemented` bodies and pseudocode. Synthesize across multiple model perspectives, then fill in code against the chosen sketch.
+
+## Start
+
+Open a todolist with one entry per phase before starting.
+
+1. Ground
+2. Sketch
+3. Agree
+4. Implement
+5. Scrap
+
+## Phase A: Ground the problem
+
+Build a real mental model of every system the new code touches. Run the **how** skill over the relevant subsystems. Naming a file isn't grounding. Produce the architectural explanation `how` prescribes. If the design redefines ownership or layering, also run the **why** skill on the existing shape so the rationale becomes a constraint, not a guess.
+
+Skip Phase A only when the work is genuinely greenfield with no surrounding system to integrate.
+
+## Phase B: Sketch
+
+Run the **arena** skill with the design-sketch task and the Phase A grounding artifacts. Pass `references/runner-prompt.md` as each runner's prompt.
+
+Take the runners from the `architect runners` line in the `pstack-models.mdc` rule, in place of the `arena runners` line. If the rule or that line is missing, use `claude-opus-5-5-xhigh` and `grok-4.7-xhigh-fast`. Alias and rejected entries follow the runner rules in the **arena** skill's Phase A.
+
+Design it twice. Require at least two structurally distinct candidates before synthesis, even when the first looks sufficient. This is the **exhaust-the-design-space** principle skill made concrete. Whole-shape alternatives, not point fixes inside one shape.
+
+Screen every candidate against [`references/design-red-flags.md`](references/design-red-flags.md) before synthesis. Assume the next contributor is an agent that sees only the files it opened, copies the nearest example, and takes the shortest path that compiles. Prefer the design where a change that looks right from one file is right for the whole repo.
+
+Compare viable candidates on interface depth. Prefer the design that hides more complexity behind a smaller, simpler public surface. A rich interface can keep call chains short by concentrating capability instead of scattering it across layers.
+
+Arena returns one synthesized design package. Its synthesis decision fills the rationale's "Synthesis decision" section.
+
+## Phase C: Agree (opt-in)
+
+Default: proceed directly to implementation with the synthesized design. No human checkpoint.
+
+Opt in to a checkpoint when the invoker explicitly asks: "/architect with checkpoint," "stop and show me before implementing," or similar. Then surface the synthesized design and pause for sign-off.
+
+The synthesis can ship as its own commit either way, as the "scaffold first" mode of the **foundational-thinking** principle skill. Planned and scoped breakage during fill-in is fine, per the **outcome-oriented-execution** principle skill. For adversarial pressure on the design before implementing, run the **interrogate** skill on the synthesized sketch.
+
+If the human pushes back on the shape (in a checkpoint or after the fact), treat that as Phase A evidence. Re-ground and re-run Phase B before writing more code.
+
+## Phase D: Implement against the sketch
+
+Replace `not implemented` bodies with code, pseudocode with logic. The synthesized sketch is the contract. Deviations from it are signal to surface, not friction to absorb silently. If a function needs a parameter the sketch didn't anticipate, ask whether the sketch was wrong, the requirement was missed, or the implementation is overreaching.
+
+## Phase E: Scrap when the architecture is wrong
+
+If implementation keeps producing friction the sketch can't absorb, throw the sketch out. Don't bolt fixes onto a wrong design, per the **redesign-from-first-principles** and **fix-root-causes** principle skills.
+
+The signal is a *pattern*, not single instances. Tells:
+
+- The same shape of workaround appearing repeatedly across unrelated code.
+- Multiple unrelated edge cases that all need special-case branches.
+- Types that need escape hatches (`any`, casts, optional fields always set in practice) to compile.
+- The "we need a lock" reflex when the sketch said the state wasn't shared.
+- Callers having to know the abstraction's internal rules to use it.
+- Two or more independent Phase D deviations of the same shape across the implementation.
+
+Use judgment. A few edge cases don't condemn an architecture. Some problems are legitimately complex. Complexity in the data is not complexity in the design.
+
+When you scrap:
+
+1. Re-run the **how** skill over what's been built.
+2. Redesign as if the new constraints had been day-one assumptions, per redesign-from-first-principles.
+3. Subtract before adding, per the **subtract-before-you-add** principle skill. The new sketch should be smaller than the old one before it grows.
+4. Return to Phase B and re-run arena.
+
+## Outputs
+
+The caller's usage is written first and the type sketch derived from it. One file with new types and signatures for small changes. Module map plus type definitions for larger work. The rationale ships alongside, shaped per `references/rationale-template.md`, including the usage sketch and the synthesis decision.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.32/pstack/skills/architect/references/design-red-flags.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Design red flags
+
+Screen every candidate before synthesis. A red flag is a reason to revise or reject the shape.
+
+## Shallow module
+
+A shallow module exposes a large interface while hiding little complexity. Judge depth by the capability and policy hidden behind the public surface relative to the size of that surface. Prefer a simple interface backed by substantial behavior.
+
+Do not confuse a deep module with a deep call chain. A deep call chain scatters understanding across layers. A deep module concentrates capability behind one interface.
+
+Look for these signs:
+
+- Callers coordinate several methods to complete one operation.
+- Public options expose internal stages or implementation choices.
+- Learning the interface does not save the caller from learning the implementation.
+
+## Information leakage
+
+Information leakage makes multiple modules depend on the same internal decision. A representation, policy, or protocol detail appears in more than one place, so changing it requires coordinated edits.
+
+Public re-exports of transport or wire types are leakage. Parse external data into domain types behind the interface. Keep storage schemas, framework objects, and protocol details private.
+
+## Temporal decomposition
+
+Temporal decomposition organizes modules by execution order instead of the knowledge they own. Separate load, validate, transform, and save stages often repeat one representation and its invariants across several boundaries.
+
+Group code around domain knowledge and ownership. Methods that run at different times can still belong to one module when they protect the same decisions.
+
+## Pass-through method
+
+A pass-through method forwards the same arguments to another method with the same shape. It adds a layer without hiding complexity.
+
+Remove it or move responsibility to the module that can complete the operation. Keep a forwarding boundary only when it adds policy, adaptation, or a distinct abstraction.
+
+## Split ownership
+
+More than one module writes the same state or keeps its own copy of it. An agent that edits one writer can't see the others, so their rules diverge.
+
+Give each piece of state one owner. Other modules read it or ask the owner to change it.
+
+## Two ways to do one task
+
+The design supports more than one way to do the same task. An agent copies whichever way it finds first, so every way keeps gaining callers.
+
+Keep one way. Move callers off the others and delete them in the same change.
+
+## Importable internals
+
+A caller can import a module's internals. An agent takes the shortest path that compiles, so it imports them directly and they become part of the interface.
+
+Make internals unreachable from outside the module, so an import from outside fails the build.
+
+## Hand-synced list
+
+Two or more places list the same items, and adding an item means editing every list. An agent that sees one list updates only that one.
+
+Keep one list and derive the others from it. If a list can't be derived, make the build fail when the lists disagree.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.32/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/0.15.32/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/0.15.32/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 `cursor-grok-*` and `composer-*`. A refused `composer-*` entry runs on `grok-4.7-xhigh-fast`. 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. Pick each subagent's reasoning level and fast or standard speed for the job, per the Subagents section of the **poteto-mode** skill.
+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/0.15.32/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). Pick each subagent's reasoning level and fast or standard speed for the job, per the Subagents section of the **poteto-mode** skill. 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/0.15.32/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/0.15.32/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.