plcode-linux-x64-musl 2.1.0

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/defense-in-depth.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+# Defense-in-Depth Validation
+
+## Overview
+
+When you fix a bug caused by invalid data, adding validation at one place feels sufficient. But that single check can be bypassed by different code paths, refactoring, or mocks.
+
+**Core principle:** Validate at EVERY layer data passes through. Make the bug structurally impossible.
+
+## Why Multiple Layers
+
+Single validation: "We fixed the bug"
+Multiple layers: "We made the bug impossible"
+
+Different layers catch different cases:
+
+- Entry validation catches most bugs
+- Business logic catches edge cases
+- Environment guards prevent context-specific dangers
+- Debug logging helps when other layers fail
+
+## The Four Layers
+
+### Layer 1: Entry Point Validation
+
+**Purpose:** Reject obviously invalid input at API boundary
+
+```typescript
+function createProject(name: string, workingDirectory: string) {
+  if (!workingDirectory || workingDirectory.trim() === "") {
+    throw new Error("workingDirectory cannot be empty")
+  }
+  if (!existsSync(workingDirectory)) {
+    throw new Error(`workingDirectory does not exist: ${workingDirectory}`)
+  }
+  if (!statSync(workingDirectory).isDirectory()) {
+    throw new Error(`workingDirectory is not a directory: ${workingDirectory}`)
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 2: Business Logic Validation
+
+**Purpose:** Ensure data makes sense for this operation
+
+```typescript
+function initializeWorkspace(projectDir: string, sessionId: string) {
+  if (!projectDir) {
+    throw new Error("projectDir required for workspace initialization")
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 3: Environment Guards
+
+**Purpose:** Prevent dangerous operations in specific contexts
+
+```typescript
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  // In tests, refuse git init outside temp directories
+  if (process.env.NODE_ENV === "test") {
+    const normalized = normalize(resolve(directory))
+    const tmpDir = normalize(resolve(tmpdir()))
+
+    if (!normalized.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
+      throw new Error(`Refusing git init outside temp dir during tests: ${directory}`)
+    }
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 4: Debug Instrumentation
+
+**Purpose:** Capture context for forensics
+
+```typescript
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  const stack = new Error().stack
+  logger.debug("About to git init", {
+    directory,
+    cwd: process.cwd(),
+    stack,
+  })
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+## Applying the Pattern
+
+When you find a bug:
+
+1. **Trace the data flow** - Where does bad value originate? Where used?
+2. **Map all checkpoints** - List every point data passes through
+3. **Add validation at each layer** - Entry, business, environment, debug
+4. **Test each layer** - Try to bypass layer 1, verify layer 2 catches it
+
+## Example from Session
+
+Bug: Empty `projectDir` caused `git init` in source code
+
+**Data flow:**
+
+1. Test setup → empty string
+2. `Project.create(name, '')`
+3. `WorkspaceManager.createWorkspace('')`
+4. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()`
+
+**Four layers added:**
+
+- Layer 1: `Project.create()` validates not empty/exists/writable
+- Layer 2: `WorkspaceManager` validates projectDir not empty
+- Layer 3: `WorktreeManager` refuses git init outside tmpdir in tests
+- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
+
+**Result:** All 1847 tests passed, bug impossible to reproduce
+
+## Key Insight
+
+All four layers were necessary. During testing, each layer caught bugs the others missed:
+
+- Different code paths bypassed entry validation
+- Mocks bypassed business logic checks
+- Edge cases on different platforms needed environment guards
+- Debug logging identified structural misuse
+
+**Don't stop at one validation point.** Add checks at every layer.

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/find-polluter.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Bisection script to find which test creates unwanted files/state
+# Usage: ./find-polluter.sh <file_or_dir_to_check> <test_pattern>
+# Example: ./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
+
+set -e
+
+if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
+  echo "Usage: $0 <file_to_check> <test_pattern>"
+  echo "Example: $0 '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+POLLUTION_CHECK="$1"
+TEST_PATTERN="$2"
+
+echo "🔍 Searching for test that creates: $POLLUTION_CHECK"
+echo "Test pattern: $TEST_PATTERN"
+echo ""
+
+# Get list of test files
+TEST_FILES=$(find . -path "$TEST_PATTERN" | sort)
+TOTAL=$(echo "$TEST_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+
+echo "Found $TOTAL test files"
+echo ""
+
+COUNT=0
+for TEST_FILE in $TEST_FILES; do
+  COUNT=$((COUNT + 1))
+
+  # Skip if pollution already exists
+  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+    echo "⚠️  Pollution already exists before test $COUNT/$TOTAL"
+    echo "   Skipping: $TEST_FILE"
+    continue
+  fi
+
+  echo "[$COUNT/$TOTAL] Testing: $TEST_FILE"
+
+  # Run the test
+  npm test "$TEST_FILE" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
+
+  # Check if pollution appeared
+  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+    echo ""
+    echo "🎯 FOUND POLLUTER!"
+    echo "   Test: $TEST_FILE"
+    echo "   Created: $POLLUTION_CHECK"
+    echo ""
+    echo "Pollution details:"
+    ls -la "$POLLUTION_CHECK"
+    echo ""
+    echo "To investigate:"
+    echo "  npm test $TEST_FILE    # Run just this test"
+    echo "  cat $TEST_FILE         # Review test code"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+echo ""
+echo "✅ No polluter found - all tests clean!"
+exit 0

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/root-cause-tracing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+# Root Cause Tracing
+
+## Overview
+
+Bugs often manifest deep in the call stack (git init in wrong directory, file created in wrong location, database opened with wrong path). Your instinct is to fix where the error appears, but that's treating a symptom.
+
+**Core principle:** Trace backward through the call chain until you find the original trigger, then fix at the source.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Bug appears deep in stack?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Can trace backwards?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Fix at symptom point" [shape=box];
+    "Trace to original trigger" [shape=box];
+    "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth" [shape=box];
+
+    "Bug appears deep in stack?" -> "Can trace backwards?" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Trace to original trigger" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Fix at symptom point" [label="no - dead end"];
+    "Trace to original trigger" -> "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth";
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+
+- Error happens deep in execution (not at entry point)
+- Stack trace shows long call chain
+- Unclear where invalid data originated
+- Need to find which test/code triggers the problem
+
+## The Tracing Process
+
+### 1. Observe the Symptom
+
+```
+Error: git init failed in /Users/jesse/project/packages/core
+```
+
+### 2. Find Immediate Cause
+
+**What code directly causes this?**
+
+```typescript
+await execFileAsync("git", ["init"], { cwd: projectDir })
+```
+
+### 3. Ask: What Called This?
+
+```typescript
+WorktreeManager.createSessionWorktree(projectDir, sessionId)
+  → called by Session.initializeWorkspace()
+  → called by Session.create()
+  → called by test at Project.create()
+```
+
+### 4. Keep Tracing Up
+
+**What value was passed?**
+
+- `projectDir = ''` (empty string!)
+- Empty string as `cwd` resolves to `process.cwd()`
+- That's the source code directory!
+
+### 5. Find Original Trigger
+
+**Where did empty string come from?**
+
+```typescript
+const context = setupCoreTest() // Returns { tempDir: '' }
+Project.create("name", context.tempDir) // Accessed before beforeEach!
+```
+
+## Adding Stack Traces
+
+When you can't trace manually, add instrumentation:
+
+```typescript
+// Before the problematic operation
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  const stack = new Error().stack
+  console.error("DEBUG git init:", {
+    directory,
+    cwd: process.cwd(),
+    nodeEnv: process.env.NODE_ENV,
+    stack,
+  })
+
+  await execFileAsync("git", ["init"], { cwd: directory })
+}
+```
+
+**Critical:** Use `console.error()` in tests (not logger - may not show)
+
+**Run and capture:**
+
+```bash
+npm test 2>&1 | grep 'DEBUG git init'
+```
+
+**Analyze stack traces:**
+
+- Look for test file names
+- Find the line number triggering the call
+- Identify the pattern (same test? same parameter?)
+
+## Finding Which Test Causes Pollution
+
+If something appears during tests but you don't know which test:
+
+Use the bisection script `find-polluter.sh` in this directory:
+
+```bash
+./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
+```
+
+Runs tests one-by-one, stops at first polluter. See script for usage.
+
+## Real Example: Empty projectDir
+
+**Symptom:** `.git` created in `packages/core/` (source code)
+
+**Trace chain:**
+
+1. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()` ← empty cwd parameter
+2. WorktreeManager called with empty projectDir
+3. Session.create() passed empty string
+4. Test accessed `context.tempDir` before beforeEach
+5. setupCoreTest() returns `{ tempDir: '' }` initially
+
+**Root cause:** Top-level variable initialization accessing empty value
+
+**Fix:** Made tempDir a getter that throws if accessed before beforeEach
+
+**Also added defense-in-depth:**
+
+- Layer 1: Project.create() validates directory
+- Layer 2: WorkspaceManager validates not empty
+- Layer 3: NODE_ENV guard refuses git init outside tmpdir
+- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
+
+## Key Principle
+
+```dot
+digraph principle {
+    "Found immediate cause" [shape=ellipse];
+    "Can trace one level up?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Trace backwards" [shape=box];
+    "Is this the source?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Fix at source" [shape=box];
+    "Add validation at each layer" [shape=box];
+    "Bug impossible" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "NEVER fix just the symptom" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+    "Found immediate cause" -> "Can trace one level up?";
+    "Can trace one level up?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace one level up?" -> "NEVER fix just the symptom" [label="no"];
+    "Trace backwards" -> "Is this the source?";
+    "Is this the source?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="no - keeps going"];
+    "Is this the source?" -> "Fix at source" [label="yes"];
+    "Fix at source" -> "Add validation at each layer";
+    "Add validation at each layer" -> "Bug impossible";
+}
+```
+
+**NEVER fix just where the error appears.** Trace back to find the original trigger.
+
+## Stack Trace Tips
+
+**In tests:** Use `console.error()` not logger - logger may be suppressed
+**Before operation:** Log before the dangerous operation, not after it fails
+**Include context:** Directory, cwd, environment variables, timestamps
+**Capture stack:** `new Error().stack` shows complete call chain
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging session (2025-10-03):
+
+- Found root cause through 5-level trace
+- Fixed at source (getter validation)
+- Added 4 layers of defense
+- 1847 tests passed, zero pollution

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
+
+You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
+
+1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
+2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
+3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
+4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
+5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
+6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
+
+Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
+
+- Error rate: 100%
+- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
+- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
+
+Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
+
+You quickly check the logs and see:
+
+```
+PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
+```
+
+You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
+
+**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
+
+1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
+2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
+3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
+4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
+5. Then form hypothesis and test
+
+**But the quick fix:**
+
+- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
+- Deploy: 3 minutes
+- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
+- Every minute costs $15k
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
+
+- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
+- Another $525k lost during investigation
+- Manager will be furious
+- You look slow/incompetent
+
+**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
+
+- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
+- Stop the bleeding immediately
+- Investigate root cause after service restored
+- Save $450k vs Option A
+
+**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
+
+- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
+- If nothing obvious, add retry
+- Investigate properly after restore
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
+
+The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
+
+```
+Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
+Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
+```
+
+**What you've tried:**
+
+1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
+2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
+3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
+4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
+5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
+6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
+
+You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
+
+**Two approaches:**
+
+**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
+
+- Stop guessing with timeouts
+- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
+- Understand WHY status isn't updating
+- Could take another 2-3 hours
+- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
+- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
+
+**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
+
+- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
+- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
+- Commit and go to dinner
+- File ticket to investigate later
+- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
+
+- Another 2-3 hours minimum
+- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
+- Miss dinner entirely
+- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
+- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
+
+**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
+
+- Stops the immediate bleeding
+- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
+- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
+- 4 hours not completely wasted
+- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
+
+**C) Quick investigation first**
+
+- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
+- If not obvious, use timeout solution
+- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
+- "Balanced" approach
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.

package/.plcode/skill/core/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're in a Zoom call with:
+
+- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
+- The tech lead
+- Two other developers
+
+You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
+
+**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
+
+**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
+
+**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
+
+**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
+
+**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
+
+Your systematic debugging skill says:
+
+- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
+- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
+- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
+
+But:
+
+- Senior has way more experience
+- Tech lead approved the approach
+- Everyone wants to end the call
+- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
+- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
+
+- Insist on following systematic process
+- Everyone frustrated with you
+- Senior engineer annoyed
+- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
+- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
+- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
+
+**B) Go along with senior's fix**
+
+- They have 10 years experience
+- Tech lead approved
+- Entire team wants to move forward
+- Being a "team player"
+- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
+
+**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
+
+- Quick 5-minute doc check
+- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
+- Shows you did "due diligence"
+- Doesn't waste too much time
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.

package/.plcode/skill/core/task-generator/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+name: task-generator
+description: >-
+  Generate structured task lists from specs or requirements. IMPORTANT: After
+  completing ANY spec via ExitSpecMode, ALWAYS ask the user: "Would you like me
+  to generate a task list for this spec?" Use when user confirms or explicitly
+  requests task generation from a plan/spec/PRD.
+category: meta
+---
+
+# Task Generator
+
+Generate detailed, step-by-step task lists from specs, plans, or requirements.
+
+## Workflow (2-Phase Process)
+
+### Phase 1: Generate Parent Tasks
+
+1. Analyze the spec/plan content for functional requirements and implementation scope
+2. Create the task file at `/tasks/tasks-[feature-name].md`
+3. Generate 5-7 high-level parent tasks:
+   - **Always start with task 0.0**: "Create feature branch" (unless user explicitly opts out)
+   - Use your judgment for the number of additional tasks
+4. Present parent tasks to user in the output format (without sub-tasks)
+5. Tell user: "I have generated the high-level tasks. Ready to generate sub-tasks? Reply **Go** to proceed."
+
+### Phase 2: Generate Sub-Tasks
+
+1. Wait for user to reply "Go"
+2. Break down each parent task into smaller, actionable sub-tasks
+3. Identify relevant files to create/modify (include test files)
+4. Update the task file with complete structure
+
+## Output Format
+
+Save to `/tasks/tasks-[feature-name].md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Relevant Files
+
+- `path/to/file.ts` - Brief description of why this file is relevant
+- `path/to/file.test.ts` - Unit tests for file.ts
+- `path/to/component.tsx` - Component description
+- `path/to/component.test.tsx` - Unit tests for component.tsx
+
+### Notes
+
+- Unit tests should be placed alongside the code files they test
+- Use `npx jest [optional/path/to/test/file]` to run tests
+
+## Instructions for Completing Tasks
+
+**IMPORTANT:** As you complete each task, check it off by changing `- [ ]` to `- [x]`. Update after completing each sub-task.
+
+## Tasks
+
+- [ ] 0.0 Create feature branch
+  - [ ] 0.1 Create and checkout new branch (`git checkout -b feature/[feature-name]`)
+- [ ] 1.0 [Parent Task Title]
+  - [ ] 1.1 [Sub-task description]
+  - [ ] 1.2 [Sub-task description]
+- [ ] 2.0 [Parent Task Title]
+  - [ ] 2.1 [Sub-task description]
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Target audience**: Junior developer who will implement the feature
+- **Task style**: Use imperative verbs (Create, Add, Implement, Update)
+- **Feature name**: Derive from spec title/topic in kebab-case
+- **File identification**: Include both source and test files
+- **Sub-task granularity**: Each sub-task should be completable in one focused session