pi-pstack-native 0.0.0-stage → 1.0.0

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.36/pstack/skills/why/references/sources/notion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Notion Docs
+
+## What this source contains
+
+- PRDs (product requirement documents)
+- Technical specs and RFCs
+- Architectural decision records (ADRs)
+- Meeting notes from design reviews
+- Team pages with domain context
+- Postmortems from incidents
+- Runbooks that may explain defensive code
+- Strategy documents that set priorities
+
+Notion is where "why" often lives in long-form before it becomes code. A significant feature usually has a doc.
+
+## How to search it
+
+Use the Notion MCP.
+
+1. **Keyword searches with `notion-search`.** Try:
+   - The feature name
+   - Key symbols / class names from the target code
+   - Author handles (design docs are often authored before the code lands)
+   - Error strings or user-visible terms
+   - Time-bounded queries if you know when the code shipped
+2. **Fetch candidate pages with `notion-fetch`.** Read the full content, not the preview. Rationale is often buried mid-document.
+3. **Follow backlinks and child pages.** Design docs often have sub-pages for alternatives considered, appendices, or implementation notes.
+4. **Check related databases.** `notion-query-data-sources` and `notion-query-meeting-notes` can surface meeting notes that discussed the decision.
+5. **Search author-specific spaces.** If the PR author has a personal notebook (common at some companies), it may hold exploratory thinking that preceded the code.
+
+## What good evidence looks like here
+
+- A PRD with a "Problem statement" or "Motivation" section that matches the target code's purpose
+- An "Alternatives considered" or "Rejected approaches" section
+- A postmortem that names the target code as the fix for a specific incident
+- Meeting notes that record "we decided X because Y" and tie to the same author/date range as the PR
+- An ADR template filled out non-trivially (status, context, decision, consequences)
+
+## Common pitfalls
+
+- **Outdated docs.** Specs are often written before implementation and not updated. The doc may describe a plan that changed. Cross-check against the actual PR.
+- **Doc vs. reality drift.** A spec may say "we'll do X" but the code actually does Y. Flag the divergence. The synthesizer will surface the contradiction.
+- **Boilerplate templates.** Some orgs require a "Why" section that gets filled with fluff. Look for specificity.
+- **Unlinked docs.** The most relevant doc may not be linked from anywhere. Broad keyword searches help.
+- **Multiple drafts.** If a topic has multiple docs, find the one that was finalized or most recently updated. Check dates.
+- **Access-restricted pages.** If you can't access a page, note it as a gap.
+
+## What to return
+
+For each relevant doc:
+- Title and URL
+- Authors and last-updated date
+- The motivation text (verbatim quote), with page/section location
+- Relevant linked pages (so the synthesizer can cite them)
+- Whether the doc was finalized or draft

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.36/pstack/skills/why/references/sources/sentry.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Sentry Error History
+
+## How to search it
+
+Use the Sentry MCP.
+
+1. **Orient.** If you don't know the project slug and organization:
+
+   ```
+   find_organizations
+   find_projects
+   ```
+
+2. **Search for issues related to the target.**
+
+   ```
+   search_issues (natural language, e.g., "errors in PaymentService timeout", "unhandled exceptions in uploadFile")
+   ```
+
+   Build queries from the exception class names the target handles, its function or class name, the error message strings it checks for, and its file path.
+
+3. **Narrow by release and time window.**
+
+   ```
+   search_issue_events (filter by release, time, environment, trace ID, tags)
+   get_issue_tag_values (for an issue, see distribution across versions, users, environments)
+   ```
+
+   For a suspected issue, check **first seen** and **last seen** (does the stop line up with the target's ship date?), the **affected releases** (which saw it, and which was the fix?), and the **frequency trajectory** (did it spike, then get resolved?).
+
+4. **Pull the full event for context.**
+
+   ```
+   get_sentry_resource (pass a Sentry URL or type+ID)
+   ```
+
+   Does the stack trace pass through the target code? Do the tags and breadcrumbs match the conditions the target defends against?
+
+5. **Check releases that landed near the target.**
+
+   ```
+   find_releases (around the commit date of the target)
+   ```
+
+   Cross-reference release version with the PR's merge date.
+
+6. **Use Seer sparingly.**
+
+   ```
+   analyze_issue_with_seer
+   ```
+
+   Seer's AI root-cause analyses are a hypothesis generator. Treat them as inference, not authoritative. The actual events and stack traces are the primary evidence.
+
+## What to return
+
+For each relevant issue:
+- Issue ID and title
+- Project and organization
+- First seen / last seen timestamps
+- Event count (and sampling rate if known)
+- Affected releases
+- A representative stack trace snippet showing relevance to the target (verbatim excerpt, not summary)
+- First/last-seen correlation with the target's ship date
+- Link to the issue
+- Any author comments or resolution notes

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.36/pstack/skills/why/references/sources/slack.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# Slack Conversations
+
+## How to search it
+
+Slack MCP tools vary. Check which Slack MCP is available and inspect its tool schema first. It may require `mcp_auth`. If authentication fails, stop and report the gap.
+
+1. **Author-bounded search.** Messages from the PR author around the PR merge date. Limits scope dramatically and often hits gold.
+3. **PR URL search.** Slack often links PRs when they're reviewed or discussed. Search for the PR URL (or just `/pull/<number>`).
+4. **Error string search.** If the code handles a specific error, search for the error string. Incident threads often surface.
+
+## Common pitfalls
+
+- **Channel archaeology limits.** Very old messages may be gone due to retention policies. If you can't find anything before a certain date, note the retention cliff.
+- **Unsearched DMs.** Many decisions happen in DMs that aren't searchable. You'll miss them. That's a known limitation.
+- **Speculative jokes as "decisions."** Slack is casual. "Lol just do the thing" isn't a decision, even if it preceded the commit. Look for considered discussion.
+- **Context collapse in single messages.** Without the thread, a single message often reads differently than in context. Always fetch threads.
+- **Auth failures.** If the MCP isn't authenticated, stop. Don't make up findings. Report that Slack wasn't searchable.

package/vendor/upstream/0.15.36/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.