pi-t3-pstack 0.0.0-stage → 0.1.0

package/pstack/skills/how/references/explainer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Explainer Prompt Template
+
+Build the explainer subagent's prompt from this template. Fill in the placeholders.
+
+---
+
+You are writing an architectural explanation for a senior engineer. Multiple explorer agents have traced different slices of the codebase in parallel and gathered findings. Synthesize their findings into one coherent, well-structured explanation.
+
+## Original Question
+
+> {QUESTION}
+
+## Explorer Findings
+
+{EXPLORER_FINDINGS_ALL}
+
+## Instructions
+
+The explorers each investigated a different angle of the same subsystem. Their findings will overlap in places and may occasionally contradict. Reconcile them. Merge overlapping descriptions, resolve contradictions by checking the code yourself, and combine the separate slices into a unified picture.
+
+Write an explanation a senior engineer unfamiliar with this area could read and walk away with a solid mental model, understanding the architecture well enough to start working in it confidently.
+
+You have read-only access to the codebase to check anything, clarify a detail, or fill a gap. Use Read, Grep, and Glob as needed. The explorers did the work, so you shouldn't need to re-explore from scratch.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Use this structure, adapted to what makes sense for the question. Not every section is needed for every question.
+
+### Overview
+1-2 paragraphs. What is this thing, what does it do, why does it exist. Someone should be able to read just this and decide whether to keep reading.
+
+### Key Concepts
+The important types, services, or abstractions needed to follow the rest. Brief definitions, not exhaustive.
+
+### How It Works
+The core of the explanation, and the longest section. Walk through the flow: what triggers it, what happens step by step, where data goes, what the decision points are.
+
+Use prose, not pseudocode. Reference specific files and functions so the reader knows where to look, but don't dump large code blocks unless a snippet is essential to a point.
+
+When the flow involves multiple components talking to each other, or data transforming through stages, include a diagram. Use mermaid (```mermaid) for structured flows (sequence diagrams, flowcharts, component graphs) or ASCII art for simpler relationships where mermaid would be overkill. Use your judgment. A diagram should clarify, not decorate. If prose covers the flow, skip the diagram.
+
+### Where Things Live
+A brief file/directory map. Just the ones someone would need to start working here.
+
+### Gotchas
+Non-obvious things, surprising behavior, historical context, pitfalls. Skip this section if there's nothing worth calling out.
+
+## Communication Style
+
+- Use concrete language, not abstractions-about-abstractions
+- Say "the `UserService` calls `AuthClient.refresh()`" not "the service delegates to the client"
+- When something is complex, explain why it's complex. Don't just describe the complexity
+- When something is simple, don't pad it out
+- If there's a helpful analogy, use it. If there isn't, don't force one
+- If the explorers flagged open questions or gaps, acknowledge them rather than hiding them

package/pstack/skills/how/references/explorer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Explorer Prompt Template
+
+Build each explorer subagent's prompt from this template. Fill in the placeholders.
+
+---
+
+Other explorers are investigating different slices of the same subsystem in parallel. Don't try to cover everything. Focus on your assigned angle and go deep.
+
+## Question
+
+> {QUESTION}
+
+## Your Exploration Angle
+
+{EXPLORATION_ANGLE}
+
+## Output
+
+### Components Found
+The key types, services, classes, and abstractions. For each: name, file path, and a one-sentence description of what it does.
+
+### Flow
+The execution flow step by step. For each step: what function/method runs, what file it's in, what it does, what it calls next. Include the data that flows between steps.
+
+### Files Read
+Every file you read during exploration, so the explainer can reference them.
+
+### Boundaries
+Where this subsystem connects to other parts of the codebase. The inputs and outputs.
+
+### Non-Obvious Things
+Anything surprising, historically motivated, or easy to get wrong. Things that look like they should work one way but work another.
+
+### Open Questions
+Anything you couldn't fully trace or understand. Be honest about gaps.

package/pstack/skills/in-your-own-words/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+name: in-your-own-words
+description: "Restate in your own words what you think the user's goals are and what problem they're trying to solve. Use for /in-your-own-words."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+Restate in your own words what you think the user's goals are and what problem they're trying to solve.

package/pstack/skills/interrogate/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+name: interrogate
+description: "Use for \"interrogate\", \"adversarial review\", \"multi-model review\", \"challenge this\", \"stress test this code\", \"find blind spots\", or \"tear this apart\". Adversaries try to break a change or design, and only findings proven by a run survive."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Interrogate
+
+Adversaries try to break a change or a design. A finding survives only when a run proves it. Report the findings. Do not apply fixes.
+
+## Frame
+
+The scope is what the user names. Otherwise it is the branch diff from its merge base with the base branch, through the working tree. State the intent with the **in-your-own-words** skill, from the user's message, the commits, and the PR description. Ask the user when the intent is unclear.
+
+## Fan out
+
+Run Phase A steps 3 and 4 and Phase B of the **arena** skill, with four changes. Call `pstack_model` with `interrogate reviewers` in place of `arena runners`, and if it returns `blocked`, record its reason as `BLOCKED: independent review`. Copy the scope's uncommitted changes into each worktree. Spawn each adversary as a `delegate_task` child with `role: "review"` and no persona brief. In place of the arena task and rationale, give each adversary the scope, the intent, and this brief:
+
+> Break this change. Prove each finding with a run against the real code, such as a failing test, a repro script, or command output that shows the wrong behavior. For a design or plan, run a prototype or probe the current tree. Keep repros in your own worktree. Report each finding with a title, the exact command, the output it printed, and the output the intent requires. Leave out anything you did not run. That covers style, naming, structure, and risks that need a future change to matter. No findings is a valid result.
+
+## Verify
+
+Verify each finding per arena Phase F by rerunning its command. Keep a finding when the output shows the failure and the failure breaks the intent. Drop the rest. Merge findings that share a root cause.
+
+Skip arena Phases C, D, and E. Adversaries find different failures, so the verdict keeps every verified finding, not one adversary's list.
+
+## Output
+
+- **Intent**: the restatement.
+- **Findings**: for each verified finding, the command, its output, how it breaks the intent, and the adversaries that found it. Say "no verified findings" when none survive.
+- **Dropped**: for each adversary, the count of dropped findings and why.
+
+## Models
+
+Get every target from the `pstack_model` tool. Pass the role name plus the job type and size from the routing table in poteto-mode's Subagents section. This skill's spawns are `review` jobs, size S or M. Write every brief from `<plugin root>/skills/poteto-mode/brief.md`: the extension refuses a `delegate_task` call whose brief is missing its sections or limits. Without a job, pass the complexity: `groundwork` for cheap mechanical work, `bounded` for involved but bounded work, `general` for work that needs substantial judgment. The tool reads the role's line in the model sheet (`~/.config/t3-pstack/models.md`, written by `/setup-pstack`). A line naming a model is used as written, moved to a provider T3 can run right now when needed. A role with no line, or `inherit-parent` or `auto`, is routed by this extension's `models.json`: the parent's model family, sized and reasoned by complexity, and for panels one seat per family. The extension blocks a `delegate_task` call that uses the reserved Fable model or fast mode unless the user named it, reasoning above what `pstack_model` returned, or reasoning above high unless the user's latest message is "allow xhigh". Pass each returned target as `delegate_task`'s `target`. `inherit-parent` means omit `target`. `blocked` means the panel cannot reach two model families on this T3, so record its reason.
+
+- interrogate reviewers: panel, one seat per model family

package/pstack/skills/ketchup/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+name: ketchup
+description: "Catch the user up on what changed in this chat since their last message, in plain words and small visuals. List every item waiting on them with what they need to decide it from the reply alone. Use for /ketchup."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Ketchup
+
+Catch the user up on what changed in this chat since the last message they wrote before `/ketchup`, and help them understand each change, not only where it stands. Then lay out every call waiting on them so they can make it from your reply alone. Notifications and subagent results are not their messages. Assume the user remembers their last message and nothing after it.
+
+Use [`/bro`](../bro/SKILL.md)'s voice, not its task: plain words, short sentences, no jargon, like one person catching up another. Say what changed for the user, not how you did it. Say "the tests pass", not "CI is green". Leave out hashes, file paths, commands, build numbers, and test counts unless the user needs one to act. Call each PR, branch, or agent by a name the user would know, not by a label you invented. If a fact needs context to make sense, give the context or leave the fact out.
+
+## Gather what changed
+
+Keep this turn read-only. Make visuals only from what you already have: do not change code, start an app or a job, or post anything. Collect your own work since that message, reports from subagents, and messages from anyone else in this chat. Check the current state of each PR, CI run, or agent this chat touched, with `task_status` for a delegated child and `list_thread_pull_requests` for this thread's PRs. Check each number you will show against the facts it comes from, and say so when you correct one.
+
+An action item is a call or step only the user can take, such as a product choice, an approval, an irreversible action, or access you lack. Include any still waiting on the user, even one raised before their last message. Work you can still do yourself is not an action item. Never make up a call to fill the reply. A step the user did not ask for and the work does not need is not an action item, unless it is irreversible and waiting on the user: give it one line and no visual.
+
+One call can cover many items, such as each PR in a set awaiting merge. For each item, collect its link, what it changes for users, the evidence behind your pick, its risk, and your pick. Write "unknown" for a fact the call needs that you do not know. Leave out a link you do not have.
+
+## Write the reply
+
+Spend words on the calls, not on the story. Keep what happened under 100 words, not counting pictures, and shorter when less happened. Leave out work that changed nothing for the user. Give each item about 30 words. The reply grows with the number of items: two items need well under 150 words in all, not counting pictures, and thirty need far more. Never cut items or shrink them to stay under a word count: no count in place of a list, and no link in place of an item. A link can add depth, but the reply alone must be enough to decide.
+
+Open with one short sentence that names what waits on the user, or says nothing does. The action items give the detail. If nothing happened and nothing waits on the user, say so and stop.
+
+Then show what happened, pictures first. Embed inline the screenshots and videos the work produced, then any diagram that explains a change. Then sum up in one short bullet per thing the user asked for: what came of it, and whether it is done, still running, failed, or not checked. Write each line the way you would say it out loud: "Search was slow from a missing index", not "Search review: done" or "Slow search: missing index". Name any bug found and fixed on the way. Each line must stay true when read alone. Never mark something done that still waits on the user, and leave out anything the action items say. Under the summary, give at most three short lines that change what the user knows or must do. Then name in one line any work left that you can do yourself.
+
+Then list the action items. Ask the call the user owns, such as merge, approve, or pick, and give your pick. A step you would take first goes in your pick. So does anything that must happen first, and anything that cannot be undone. Give the number or link of each PR, issue, or agent a call is about, also in a call between options.
+
+Fit the shape to the call. A call about one item is one bullet: the call, your pick, what it changes for users, the evidence behind your pick, and its risk, with the item named once. When items share a call, write the call and your pick once, then give each item its own bullet, riskiest first: its link and name, what it changes for users, the evidence behind your pick, and its risk. Name an item's pick only where it differs from the call's. Give each item's risk even when it is low, such as "Low risk: only the colors change." Say what waiting costs only when it is more than a delay, such as a deadline or lost data.
+
+For a call between options, give every option the work weighed, each with what it gets the user and what it costs, and the current state when there is one. Those costs are the call's risk, so add no separate risk line. When the screenshots above show the options, write each option's gain and cost under its screenshot.
+
+## Visuals
+
+A visual is a picture: a screenshot, a video, a Mermaid diagram, a chart or diagram rendered with T3's `html_render` after an `html_preview` check, or a generated image. A Markdown table is not a visual, even with before and after columns.
+
+When something is easier to grasp as a picture than as sentences, draw it: how a design or system works, a PR stack or dependency chain with each PR's state, a before and after of a fix, or options side by side. Never draw a status list, a list of action items, or boxes with nothing connecting them. Never give a fact twice, in text or across visuals.
+
+Keep each visual small enough to read at a glance: at most six boxes, with at most eight words in each. Write labels as plain words a person would say, not tags like "Tests: pass". A fact that needs a sentence belongs in the text, or nowhere.
+
+Embed screenshots and videos inline when the change is visible, not only as links. If a visible change has none, mark its summary line "No screenshot yet," and say there what changed on screen. Draw diagrams and charts from facts you have: a Mermaid diagram for how things connect and an `html_render` chart for numbers. Never invent a number, and never draw or generate a picture of a screen you did not capture. Link only artifacts that exist.

package/pstack/skills/ketchup-video/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+name: ketchup-video
+description: "Catch the user up like /ketchup, with a short subtitled video of slides for what happened and the waiting calls as text under it. Use for /ketchup-video."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Ketchup video
+
+Follow [`/ketchup`](../ketchup/SKILL.md), but show what happened in a short subtitled video instead of its summary and visuals. Its window starts at the last message the user wrote before `/ketchup-video`, not before any earlier `/ketchup`. Writing and rendering the video, outside the repo, is the one exception to its read-only rule. The reply is ketchup's opening sentence, the embedded video, one line naming any work left that you can do yourself, and the action items. Embed the video as a Markdown image whose target is the video's absolute path, which T3 shows as a player. When the video shows a call's options, call each option by the name the video gives it. If the render fails, say so in one line and give only the calls.
+
+## Slides
+
+Use the screenshots, recordings, diffs, and data the work produced, not the chat's prose about them. Before you draw, write the one sentence the user should leave with and one line per slide. Drop each slide that does not change what the user knows. Use at most 10 slides, and fewer is better. Neither note goes in the reply.
+
+Each slide makes one point. Build the slides on one picture and change it from slide to slide, rather than cut to an unrelated one. A color or shape means the same thing on every slide. Show the work in pictures, such as how a system works, a PR stack with each PR's state, a before and after of a fix, or options side by side. Point at what changed with arrows, highlights, and motion. A slide is never a bullet list, a status list, a table, or boxes with nothing connecting them.
+
+Keep text to the minimum. Put each label on the thing it names, in plain words a person would say, not tags like "Tests: pass". Never caption what a picture shows, and never give a fact twice, across slides or in the text under them.
+
+Show what came of each thing the user asked for, and whether it is done, still running, failed, or not checked. Never show something done that still waits on the user. Show any bug found and fixed on the way. If a visible change has no screenshot, say so on its slide and name what changed on screen. Draw only from facts you have. Never invent a number, and never draw a screen you did not capture.
+
+## Subtitles
+
+Give each slide one short subtitle line, about ten words, that says its point the way you would tell the user, from only what that slide shows. Say what the picture means rather than read out its labels. Put the subtitle in a strip below the slide, the same height on every slide and empty except for the subtitle, so it never covers the slide. Set it small, but readable when the video plays at chat size.
+
+## Render
+
+Render one silent landscape video, such as an mp4, with motion between slides. Every frame is the slide itself, edge to edge, above its subtitle strip. Make the frames from the slides, never by recording a screen, and burn each subtitle into its slide's frames so it stays on screen for the slide's whole hold. The hold is the time a slide is fully on screen, not counting the motion into or out of it. Hold each slide long enough to read the words it adds, at least one second for each three words. A slide adds its subtitle and each word that was not on the slide before it, including a label it changes. The first slide adds all its words. Words inside a screenshot do not count.
+
+Before you embed the video, check the rendered file. Look at one frame from each slide at chat size, and check that its subtitle is readable and covers nothing. Measure each hold by matching the file's frames to the slide, not with a still-frame detector, which counts the faint ends of a fade as still. Count the words each slide adds against its measured hold. Fix any slide you cannot read in that time, render again, and check again.

package/pstack/skills/maintain-formal-verification-skill/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+name: maintain-formal-verification-skill
+description: "Bring a project's formal verification back in line with the code after the code changes: find the commits that touched verified code, update the model, harness, or properties to describe the code as it is now, rerun, and say whether each failure is drift in the verification or a bug in the code. Use for /maintain-formal-verification-skill, \"is the model still true to the code\", or after merges and refactors that touched verified code without rechecking it."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Maintain a formal verification skill
+
+A formal check proves a property of what it describes. When the code changes and the verification does not, the check can keep passing while it describes code that no longer exists. That pass is the dangerous case, because it looks like a proof. This skill is the upkeep loop for a verify skill that `/create-formal-verification-skill` generated, or for any project-local skill that runs a model checker, prover, or code-level verifier against named code. The project-local skill handles a change that an agent makes while it uses that skill. This skill handles the changes that skipped it: merges, edits made without the skill, and drift that builds up across many commits.
+
+## Outcomes
+
+Give each check one outcome, and say which:
+
+- **in sync**: no change since the last sync alters what the check describes, and the check passes.
+- **updated**: the code changed, the verification now describes the new code, and the check passes.
+- **bug**: the verification describes the current code, and the code breaks the property. This is a finding about the code. It is not drift.
+- **blocked**: the check could not be brought back in line or could not run. Say exactly why.
+
+A check can be both updated and bug: the update makes the verification describe the code again, and then the property fails on it.
+
+## Edit scope
+
+Edit only the verification: models, harnesses, property files, and the verify skill itself. Never edit product code during a run, unless the user asks you to. When a property fails on the current code, do not weaken the property or the model to make it pass. Report the failure.
+
+## Pass
+
+1. **Find the checks.** A verify skill has no fixed name, so find it by what it does: a project skill that runs a model checker, a prover, or another verifier against named code. Read each one you find, or the one the user named. For each check, collect the property, the code it covers, the bounds and assumptions, the command that runs it, and the commit where it was last confirmed to describe the code. If no verify skill exists, stop and point at `/create-formal-verification-skill`. If the skill does not record a sync commit, use the last commit that changed the verification files, and say that you did.
+
+2. **Run it as it is.** Run each check once before you change anything, and record the result. A pass here does not tell you that the code is correct. It tells you that the old description still holds. A failure here can be drift or a bug. Do not decide which until step 5.
+
+3. **Read every change to covered code.** Diff the covered files from the sync commit to the current commit, and read each commit message. Also look for code that moved: a covered function that is renamed, split, or moved to another file is still covered code. Also look for new code that touches the state that a check guards, such as a new function that writes the same fields. For each change, decide which of these it is:
+   - **No effect.** The change does not alter anything the verification describes, such as formatting, comments, or code paths that the verification does not cover. Check this against the model or harness, not against the commit message.
+   - **The verification no longer describes the code.** A step that was one indivisible action is now two, a branch was added or removed, a check moved, a new path reaches the guarded state, or a value now has a different range. The model or harness must change.
+   - **The promise changed on purpose.** The change alters what the code promises, and evidence in the change says that this is intended: the doc comment, the tests, the changelog, or the commit message. The property must change, and you must cite that evidence.
+   - **The promise may be broken.** The code changed, and no evidence says that the promise changed. Treat a failure that follows as a bug candidate.
+
+4. **Update from the code, not from the result.** Change the model or harness so that each changed part again points to code that a reviewer can open, and keep one indivisible step in the code as one step in the verification. Write the update from the code before you rerun, and do not shape it by what makes the check pass. Change a property only for a promise that changed on purpose. Write down the old wording, the new wording, and the evidence. Keep the bounds unless the change makes them wrong. If you must reduce a bound, say so in the report.
+
+5. **Rerun and judge each result.**
+   - **Pass:** the check can now pass on a description that has lost the ability to fail. Break the new code the way the property guards against, such as removing a new check or reordering a new step, and confirm that the check catches it. Then drop the break.
+   - **Fail:** replay the counterexample against the real code, step by step. If a step cannot happen in the code, the verification is wrong. Fix the verification, and say what was wrong. If every step can happen, it is a bug. Name the commit that introduced it, tell the counterexample as a sequence of steps in the code's own words, and state the harm in one sentence. If a cheap test or reproduction against the real code shows the bug, add it to the report as evidence. Do not commit it to the product code.
+
+6. **Update the verify skill.** Update the code that each check covers, the commands, the bounds, the assumptions, and the sync commit. Set the sync commit to the commit that you checked. Do not move the sync commit for a blocked check, and say so in the report. Then follow the verify skill once as the next agent would, so that you know its steps still run.
+
+## Report
+
+Tell the user, for each check:
+
+- the outcome, and the commits that you read;
+- what changed in the verification and why, with a short reason for each change: the code changed shape, or the promise changed on purpose (with the evidence);
+- the rerun result, and the break that you used to show the updated check can still fail;
+- each bug, in plain words: the counterexample as steps in the code's words, the harm, and the commit that introduced it;
+- what the verification still does not cover, including new code that it should cover and does not.
+
+Say outright which failures were drift in the verification and which were bugs in the code. For a check that passed before you updated it and fails after, say that the old pass was on a stale description.
+
+Put the verification updates in a change of their own, separate from any product fix.

package/pstack/skills/maintain-verification-skill/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+name: maintain-verification-skill
+description: "Periodic pass that keeps a project's verification skill and feature map honest: parallel source readers per feature, one live session driving every feature, at most one PR of proven corrections. Use for /maintain-verification-skill or \"audit the verify skill\"."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Maintain a verification skill
+
+A feature map rots the moment the app changes. This skill is the upkeep loop for a skill generated by `/create-verification-skill` (or any project-local verification skill with a feature map). The unit of rigor is the feature, not every sentence: cover every feature file from source and exercise every feature live, without terminalising every bullet.
+
+## Outcomes
+
+Pick one, and say which:
+
+- **clean** — every feature got source and live coverage; nothing worth shipping. No branch, no PR.
+- **changed** — one PR ships proven doc, harness, or map corrections.
+- **blocked** — coverage could not finish or a proven fix could not ship safely. Say exactly what blocked it.
+
+## Edit scope
+
+Only edit the verification skill's own directory (its SKILL.md, features/, and any harness scripts it owns). Never edit product code during a run: a behavior the map describes that the app no longer does is either doc drift (fix the map) or a product regression (report it, don't paper over it in docs).
+
+## Pass
+
+0. **Locate the target.** Find the verification skill to maintain: the project-local skill whose body has launch/drive sections and a feature map (usually `.claude/skills/verify-*/` on Claude Code or `.agents/skills/verify-*/` elsewhere). Several candidates → ask which one; none → stop and point at `/create-verification-skill` instead of inventing a target.
+
+1. **Index hygiene.** Read the feature map README and glob its sibling files. Fix missing, extra, duplicate, or dead entries. Lightweight; no generated inventory.
+
+2. **Source wave.** One read-only subagent per feature file, launched concurrently. Each explains "how does this user-facing feature work?" from source, flags likely doc drift with citations, and returns one concise live-verification recipe. Children never drive the app and never edit files. Return shape: feature summary / source entry points / likely drift or none / one recipe.
+
+3. **Reconcile.** Every feature file has a returned summary. Merge overlapping recipes into as few app states as practical. Spot-check cited drift; don't re-prove clean claims. Sweep recent churn for user-facing surfaces missing from the map — require a concrete source path before calling one missing.
+
+4. **Live pass.** Required even when source looks clean. The coordinator owns all driving; follow the verification skill's own launch model — one long-lived instance driven serially for servers and UIs, or a fresh isolated session per drive for short-lived CLIs (the skill's Launch section decides, not this one). Exercise every feature at least once, and hold three invariants the whole pass, whatever the failure: (1) never drive an instance you haven't health-checked since it last did something surprising — doctor before first drive, doctor on each fresh session where sessions are the unit, doctor again after any failed drive, and where doctor can't see the failure (a wedged UI state on a healthy process), reset to a known state or relaunch rather than hoping; (2) evidence captured so far survives every cleanup, checked at its named location, not assumed; (3) nothing a drive started outlives that drive's usefulness — failed-iteration residue is cleaned whether the session is stuck, exited, or shared (for a shared instance, clean the residue, not the instance). A doctor failure caused by skill drift is drift: fix it under edit scope and retry once — restart whatever the fix invalidated, nothing more — before calling the pass `blocked`. A feature that can't be reached is `verified-unreachable` only with the concrete prerequisite (auth, entitlement, OS, external state) and the route attempted; if the map omits that prerequisite, that's drift. Any harness fix from triage gets re-driven live before it ships. Final teardown happens after the last drive of the run — including those re-proofs — so nothing outlives the run (evidence stays, per the skill).
+
+5. **Triage.** Wrong or missing user-POV description → doc drift, fix it. Working behavior the harness can't drive → harness gap, fix it; a harness fix follows the same helpers rule as generation (scripts executable, invocation documented in the skill body). App behavior that's actually broken → product gap; record it for the user, keep it out of this PR.
+
+6. **Ship or stop.** For changed: one PR of proven corrections, re-read every changed file first. For clean or blocked: no PR, report the outcome and the coverage honestly.
+
+Keep concise run notes (features covered, unreachable prerequisites, confirmed drift, outcome) in a scratch location; don't commit them.

package/pstack/skills/make-pr-easy-to-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+name: make-pr-easy-to-review
+description: Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
+---
+
+# Make PR Easy to Review
+
+Prepare a PR so a reviewer can quickly understand the intent, important files, and risk. The default goal is reviewability without behavior changes.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Resolve the target PR from the user-provided URL or current branch.
+2. Inspect commits, diff size, changed paths, generated files, and PR description.
+3. Identify reviewability issues: noisy commits, stale description, unrelated changes, mixed mechanical and logic changes, missing tests, or unclear reviewer entry points.
+4. Propose a plan before rewriting history or force-pushing.
+5. Apply safe improvements, then verify the tree or diff still matches the intended code.
+
+## History Cleanup
+
+Only rewrite history when the user asks for it or agrees to the plan. Before rewriting:
+
+```bash
+gh pr view <PR> --json title,headRefName,baseRefName,state,commits
+git fetch origin <headRefName> <baseRefName>
+ORIGINAL_TREE=$(git rev-parse origin/<headRefName>^{tree})
+```
+
+Good commit groupings usually follow dependency order:
+
+1. Schema/storage or generated API definitions.
+2. Core logic.
+3. Wiring and integration.
+4. UI or surface behavior.
+5. Tests.
+
+After rewriting, verify content identity:
+
+```bash
+echo "Original tree: $ORIGINAL_TREE"
+echo "Current tree:  $(git rev-parse HEAD^{tree})"
+git diff origin/<headRefName> --stat
+```
+
+Do not push if the tree changed unintentionally.
+
+## Reviewer Guidance
+
+When code behavior should stay untouched, prefer PR description and review notes:
+
+- Add a TL;DR that matches the actual diff.
+- Separate core files from generated or mechanical files.
+- Call out risky behavior changes, migration order, rollout plan, and test coverage.
+- Link issue trackers, dashboards, or design docs when they explain intent.
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- Never hide meaningful behavior changes inside "cleanup".
+- Do not bypass hooks unless the user explicitly asks.
+- If the PR is too large to make reviewable with notes, recommend splitting instead of polishing around the problem.

package/pstack/skills/no-comments/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+name: no-comments
+description: "Spawn Comment Sicko, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# No comments
+
+Spawn Comment Sicko. Act on accepted findings.
+
+Defer to Comment Sicko's fresh perspective.
+
+## Scope
+
+Use the caller's files or diff. Otherwise use the current diff against the base branch, default `main`, including the working tree.
+
+## Steps
+
+1. Dispatch one `delegate_task` child (`mode: "async"`, `role: "review"`) whose brief opens with "Read `<plugin root>/agents/comment-sicko.md` in full and act as it says" (`<plugin root>` is the directory that holds this plugin's `skills/`). Pass the scope, and no worktree, because a worktree lacks the scope's uncommitted changes. Pick each subagent's reasoning level and fast or standard speed for the job, per the Subagents section of the **poteto-mode** skill. Do not restate its rules.
+2. Inspect its report and diff. Reject application-code edits, scope escapes, exception-protected deletions, misstated `MUST KILL` reasons, and flags that treat kept intentional code as guilty. Reshape flags on our-code surprises stay actionable. Do not restore those comments. A keep survives only with proof it is about something we cannot change. Audit missed scoped lint and TypeScript suppressions. Correctness or safety suppressions stay actionable `MUST KILL`s. Restore deletions only with exact exceptions and scoped proof. Before accepting thin `IMPORTANT` or `do not remove` kills or keeps, run `/how` or `/why` on their symbol. If a kill is ambiguous, do not restore. If a keep is refuted or still ambiguous, delete it. Revert and rerun one rejected report with the failure named. Reject a second, report it open, and fail `/no-comments`.
+3. Fix trivial accepted flags directly by deleting a dead path, dropping a parameter, or using the real API. If any fix needs a shape, run `/architect` once for the accepted set and surrounding code. Stop at the sketch. Architect shapes. Step 4 implements.
+4. Implement the smallest root-cause fix in scope. Remove every named workaround. If the root cause is out of scope, land the smallest in-scope fix and report the rest open. The **principle-fix-root-causes** and **principle-redesign-from-first-principles** skills guide intent only. Neither authorizes widening the fence nor fixing instances outside it. Never bolt on symptom guards.
+5. Constraint comments say `do not remove`, `do not change wording`, or `talk to X before changing`. Leave keeps about things we cannot change. Offer the cheapest in-scope type, runtime, test, or CI lint. Wait for interactive approval. Unattended and eval require caller pre-approval. If approved, encode then delete. Otherwise delete, report the constraint open, and sketch out-of-scope work.
+6. Report the deletion count, restored comments, reruns, architect sketch, fixes, encoding offers, encodings, unenforced constraints, and other open work.

package/pstack/skills/poteto-help/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+name: poteto-help
+description: Guides users through pstack setup, /poteto-mode, and picking the skill, playbook, or principle for a task. Type /poteto-help with a question.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Poteto help
+
+Answer the user's question about pstack, hand them a prompt they can send, and link the file the answer came from. For a help question, don't start the work. The user asked how, and a pstack run spends real tokens, so let them send the prompt.
+
+A message that asks for work, such as "use pstack to fix this bug", is not a help question. Read [`poteto-mode`](../poteto-mode/SKILL.md), do the work under it, and mention once that starting each task with `/poteto-mode` keeps it on.
+
+This file maps questions to the skills and guide pages that hold the answers. Those files own the details. Read the file you route to before you quote it, and trust it when it disagrees with this map. The links here point into the installed plugin, which the user may not be able to open, so give the user the file's public copy: `https://github.com/chhoumann/t3-pstack/blob/main/plugins/pstack/` followed by its path.
+
+## Find out what they need
+
+Infer the need from the message and the conversation. A named situation, such as "which skill reviews a PR?", goes straight to its section. If the need is still unclear, ask one multiple-choice question with these options, then answer only the section they pick:
+
+- Get set up
+- Start a task with `/poteto-mode`
+- Pick a skill for a situation
+- Fix a run that went wrong
+- Make pstack my own
+
+Check the state that changes the answer, and mention it only when it does:
+
+- No model sheet (`~/.config/t3-pstack/models.md`, see `/setup-pstack`) means `/setup-pstack` hasn't run for this user, so every role uses its default model.
+- No `verify-*` skill or other app harness in the project means agents have no scripted way to drive the app. Mention `/create-verification-skill` when the question is about proving a change works.
+- No formal verification skill in the project means no property is checked past what tests reach. Mention `/create-formal-verification-skill` when the question is about a race, an invariant, or another case tests rarely hit. When one exists and the code it covers changed after the commit it records as last in sync, mention `/maintain-formal-verification-skill` if the question touches that code.
+
+When the model sheet is missing and it matters, ask whether the user wants to pick a model for each role and a reasoning budget now. It matters when the user is new, the question is about setup or cost, or the answer depends on which models run. Ask at most once per chat. If the need is also unclear, ask both questions together. Offer two choices:
+
+- Now: give them `/setup-pstack` to type, and answer their question too.
+- Later: answer their question, and add one line saying every role keeps its default model until they run `/setup-pstack`.
+
+## Get set up
+
+1. Install t3-pstack per its [README](https://github.com/chhoumann/t3-pstack#readme). One `npx -y github:chhoumann/t3-pstack install` run installs it in every Claude Code and Codex config home T3 can run.
+2. Run [`/setup-pstack`](../setup-pstack/SKILL.md). It asks for a reasoning budget, maps a T3 provider and model to each role, and writes the model sheet. The sheet applies to new chats. Then it offers once each to generate a verification skill and a formal verification skill for the project, unless the project already has one.
+3. Start a real task with `/poteto-mode`, a goal, and a check that can pass or fail.
+
+Installing changes nothing until the user invokes a skill. Only `/setup-pstack` loads from the user's words. The [README](https://github.com/chhoumann/t3-pstack/blob/main/README.md) and [guide page 1](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/01-setup.md) have the details. Offer to word their first prompt with them, per [`references/prompting.md`](references/prompting.md).
+
+If cost is the worry, say where the tokens go and how to spend fewer. pstack spends extra tokens on subagents and review panels. Rerun `/setup-pstack` and pick a smaller budget or cheaper models. A role set to `auto` or `inherit-parent` runs on the chat's model, which saves tokens when the chat runs on a cheaper model. A shorter panel list runs fewer subagents, one for each entry. Save `/poteto-mode` for work that needs rigor.
+
+t3-pstack is pstack rewritten for T3 Code, and it installs in Claude Code and Codex with `npx -y github:chhoumann/t3-pstack install`.
+
+Its workflow skills, including `/poteto-mode`, `/how`, `/why`, and `/teach`, dispatch subagents through T3's `delegate_task` with per-role models, so those parts need a T3 thread.
+
+## Start a task with `/poteto-mode`
+
+`/poteto-mode` matches the task to a playbook, copies the playbook's steps into the todo list, and runs the other skills as the steps need them. A step it skips stays in the list as `skip: <reason>`. A good prompt states the goal and how to tell it's done. It doesn't list skills, because a hand-written sequence tends to drop or reorder steps the playbook would keep. Read [`references/prompting.md`](references/prompting.md) before you help word one. [Guide page 2](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/02-poteto-mode.md) has examples.
+
+Whether `/poteto-mode` stays on depends on how the user starts it:
+
+- Invoking `/poteto-mode` attaches the skill to one message. It fades as the chat moves on, so start each new task with it.
+- Where the harness runs t3-pstack's session-start hook, each new chat is told when to enter `/poteto-mode` on its own.
+- Skill names differ by harness: `/t3-pstack:poteto-mode` on Claude Code, `$t3-pstack:poteto-mode` on Codex. This file writes every skill as `/<name>`.
+
+Mid-chat, "new task" makes the mode match a fresh playbook. `/poteto-mode` already uses `poteto-agent` for the subagents its playbook steps spawn. To get the same style from a subagent of your own, open its `delegate_task` brief the way poteto-mode's Subagents section briefs a `poteto-agent`.
+
+## Pick a skill
+
+The default answer is `/poteto-mode`, which runs most of the others when its steps need them. Name a skill directly when the user wants more or less of something than the playbook gives. Read the skill before you recommend it, and give one example prompt.
+
+| The user wants to | Skill |
+|---|---|
+| Do any non-trivial task with rigor | [`/poteto-mode`](../poteto-mode/SKILL.md) |
+| Check that the agent understood their goal and the problem before it starts | [`/in-your-own-words`](../in-your-own-words/SKILL.md) |
+| Get a prompt rewritten deeper, not bigger, before sending it: what a top professional would add, their raw material and methods, and an outside check. It returns the prompt and doesn't do the task | [`/sharpen`](../sharpen/SKILL.md) |
+| Know how code works now, or where new code should live | [`/how`](../how/SKILL.md) |
+| Know why code is shaped this way, or where a number came from | [`/why`](../why/SKILL.md) |
+| Understand a change or subsystem, explained plainly | [`/teach`](../teach/SKILL.md) |
+| Catch up on their own recent work on a topic | [`/recall`](../recall/SKILL.md) |
+| Catch up on what changed in this chat since their last message, in plain words and small visuals, with every item waiting on them listed and decidable from the reply alone | [`/ketchup`](../ketchup/SKILL.md) |
+| Catch up like `/ketchup`, in a short subtitled video of slides, with the waiting calls as text under it | [`/ketchup-video`](../ketchup-video/SKILL.md) |
+| Know what a small diff could break outside itself | [`/blast-radius`](../blast-radius/SKILL.md) |
+| Settle types and module shape before code that crosses a function boundary | [`/architect`](../architect/SKILL.md) |
+| Get several attempts at one brief, merged into the best one | [`/arena`](../arena/SKILL.md) |
+| Run parallel checks over slices, or race workers, as parallel subagents | [`/swarm`](../swarm/SKILL.md) |
+| Have different models review a diff and try to break it | [`/interrogate`](../interrogate/SKILL.md) |
+| Fix a bug test-first when a cheap local test exists | [`/tdd`](../tdd/SKILL.md) |
+| Apply TypeScript rules to `.ts` or `.tsx` work | [`/typescript-best-practices`](../typescript-best-practices/SKILL.md) |
+| Strip comments before review, using a reviewer that didn't write them | [`/no-comments`](../no-comments/SKILL.md) |
+| Clean AI tells out of prose | [`/unslop`](../unslop/SKILL.md) |
+| Write docs, an RFC, a README, a PR description, or a commit message to a standard | [`/technical-writing`](../technical-writing/SKILL.md) |
+| Hear the last reply again in plain words | [`/bro`](../bro/SKILL.md) |
+| Give agents a scripted way to drive the app and prove behavior | [`/create-verification-skill`](../create-verification-skill/SKILL.md) |
+| Bring a verification skill and its feature map back in line with the app | [`/maintain-verification-skill`](../maintain-verification-skill/SKILL.md) |
+| Formally verify a race, invariant, or other property that tests rarely reach | [`/create-formal-verification-skill`](../create-formal-verification-skill/SKILL.md) |
+| Bring a formal verification back in line after the code it covers changed, and learn whether a failure is drift or a bug | [`/maintain-formal-verification-skill`](../maintain-formal-verification-skill/SKILL.md) |
+| Show a PM or designer what the user sees as a chart checked by a TLA+ model, with the shortest path to each state that breaks a rule | [`/statechart`](../statechart/SKILL.md) |
+| Vet a performance number before reporting or acting on it | [`/benchmark-checklist`](../benchmark-checklist/SKILL.md) |
+| Run a large or cross-cutting change, or one to review after stepping away | [`/figure-it-out`](../figure-it-out/SKILL.md) |
+| Keep a decision log during a run, and review it afterward | [`/show-me-your-work`](../show-me-your-work/SKILL.md) |
+| Pick a model for each role and a reasoning budget | [`/setup-pstack`](../setup-pstack/SKILL.md) |
+| Turn their own working habits into a personal mode skill | [`/automate-me`](../automate-me/SKILL.md) |
+| Turn what a finished task taught into skill edits | [`/reflect`](../reflect/SKILL.md) |
+| Stop agents from repeating the same mistakes in this repo | [`/correct`](../correct/SKILL.md) |
+| Find their way around pstack | `/poteto-help` |
+
+If a skill directory next to this one is missing from the table, read its frontmatter and route by its description. The `principle-*` directories are covered under principles below.
+
+Close calls:
+
+- `/how` explains what the code does. `/why` explains the reasons. `/teach` runs one or both and explains the result plainly.
+- `/arena` gives every worker the same brief and merges the best parts. `/swarm` splits work into slices or a race and returns one report.
+- `/architect` implements right after it settles the design. Add "with checkpoint" to review the design before it writes code.
+- `/interrogate` reviews the diff. `/blast-radius` looks for breakage outside the diff and proves the one fact that makes the change safe.
+- `/recall` rebuilds context across recent chats. `/ketchup` covers only this chat since the user's last message. Resuming one specific chat or branch is the Session pickup playbook.
+- `/figure-it-out` designs one rigorous run. The Orchestrate playbook runs a program that spans days and many PRs. The Autonomous run playbook drives one task to a finish condition.
+
+Not in pstack:
+
+- `/deslop` ships in this plugin. The team kit's app drivers have no T3 port. The project's verify skill and T3's `preview_*` and `device_*` tools drive apps instead.
+- Loops run through T3's `schedule_task`, and skill authoring through the harness's own skill-authoring skill.
+- pstack has no `/orchestrate` skill. Orchestrate is a `/poteto-mode` playbook. If the slash menu shows `/orchestrate`, another plugin provides it.
+
+## Playbooks and principles
+
+Playbooks are step lists inside `/poteto-mode`, not skills, so they have no slash command. Inside `/poteto-mode`, describing the task picks one, and these phrases name one directly:
+
+- "babysit this pr" or "check on pr 123" runs Babysit. It drives the PR to merge-ready and stops there. It doesn't merge unless the user asks to merge, land, or ship.
+- "land the stack" runs Shipping.
+- "take over this branch" runs Session pickup.
+- "pause safely" runs Pause safely.
+- "full autopilot on this queue" runs Autopilot-full. "autopilot, don't merge" runs Autopilot-stack.
+- "run the eval playbook" runs Eval.
+
+The Playbooks section of [`poteto-mode`](../poteto-mode/SKILL.md) lists every playbook and when it applies. [Guide page 6](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/06-verify-and-ship.md) covers opening, babysitting, and landing a PR.
+
+pstack has no planning skill. A harness plan mode works alongside it. For work that spans phases or stacked PRs, asking `/poteto-mode` for a plan runs the [Multi-phase plan playbook](../poteto-mode/playbooks/multi-phase-plan.md), which writes the plan and doesn't implement it. For a design question, the Prototype playbook or `/architect` settles it in code first.
+
+Principles are one-rule skills that `/poteto-mode` reads and cites in its replies. The user rarely invokes one. They steer with the names instead, as in "apply prove it works. show me the real output." Typing `/principle-<name>` still loads one on demand. [Guide page 8](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/08-principles.md) lists them.
+
+## Fix a run that went wrong
+
+| Symptom | Fix |
+|---|---|
+| The mode stopped applying after a few turns | It was attached to one message. Start each task with `/poteto-mode`. |
+| A question got treated as the next step of the last task | Say "new task", or say the turn doesn't need the mode. |
+| A new model choice had no effect | The sheet from `/setup-pstack` applies to new chats. Start one. |
+| Runs cost more than expected | See the cost paragraph under Get set up. |
+| A skill didn't load on its own | Only `/setup-pstack` loads from the user's words. The others load when the user types them or when `/poteto-mode` runs them, and it doesn't run every skill. |
+| Parallel agents overwrote each other | Give each agent its own worktree. |
+| An overnight run moved but finished nothing | A scheduled loop needs a check that can pass or fail, not a duration. See [guide page 7](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/07-overnight.md). |
+| The reply claims success from a green build | Ask for the real command, flow, stored value, or profile. That's the prove-it-works principle. |
+
+For a run that drifts, [`references/prompting.md`](references/prompting.md) has one-line steers. [Guide page 10](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/10-recipes-and-pitfalls.md) has more pitfalls and the recipes worth copying.
+
+## Make pstack my own
+
+- [`/automate-me`](../automate-me/SKILL.md) drafts a personal mode skill from the user's own history, to use alongside `/poteto-mode`.
+- [`/reflect`](../reflect/SKILL.md) after a session turns its lessons into skill edits the user approves.
+- `/poteto-mode write a skill for <workflow>` runs the authoring playbook. The eval playbook tests a skill change blind.
+- Fix a misbehaving skill in its own PR, not inside the feature work where it went wrong.
+
+[Guide page 9](https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/docs/guide/09-make-it-yours.md) covers each of these.
+
+## Reply
+
+Lead with the answer. Give at most one example prompt in a code block, adapted from [`references/recipes.md`](references/recipes.md) when one fits, then the link to that file. Keep it short unless the user asked for the whole map.