savepoint 1.0.3 → 1.0.6

package/agent-skills/superpowers/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md

@@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
----
-name: finishing-a-development-branch
-description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
----
-
-# Finishing a Development Branch
-
-## Overview
-
-Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
-
-**Core principle:** Verify tests → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
-
-**Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
-
-## The Process
-
-### Step 1: Verify Tests
-
-**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
-
-```bash
-# Run project's test suite
-npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
-```
-
-**If tests fail:**
-
-```
-Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
-
-[Show failures]
-
-Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
-```
-
-Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
-
-**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
-
-### Step 2: Determine Base Branch
-
-```bash
-# Try common base branches
-git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
-```
-
-Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
-
-### Step 3: Present Options
-
-Present exactly these 4 options:
-
-```
-Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
-
-1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
-2. Push and create a Pull Request
-3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
-4. Discard this work
-
-Which option?
-```
-
-**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
-
-### Step 4: Execute Choice
-
-#### Option 1: Merge Locally
-
-```bash
-# Switch to base branch
-git checkout <base-branch>
-
-# Pull latest
-git pull
-
-# Merge feature branch
-git merge <feature-branch>
-
-# Verify tests on merged result
-<test command>
-
-# If tests pass
-git branch -d <feature-branch>
-```
-
-Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
-
-#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
-
-```bash
-# Push branch
-git push -u origin <feature-branch>
-
-# Create PR
-gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
-## Summary
-<2-3 bullets of what changed>
-
-## Test Plan
-- [ ] <verification steps>
-EOF
-)"
-```
-
-Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
-
-#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
-
-Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
-
-**Don't cleanup worktree.**
-
-#### Option 4: Discard
-
-**Confirm first:**
-
-```
-This will permanently delete:
-- Branch <name>
-- All commits: <commit-list>
-- Worktree at <path>
-
-Type 'discard' to confirm.
-```
-
-Wait for exact confirmation.
-
-If confirmed:
-
-```bash
-git checkout <base-branch>
-git branch -D <feature-branch>
-```
-
-Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
-
-### Step 5: Cleanup Worktree
-
-**For Options 1, 2, 4:**
-
-Check if in worktree:
-
-```bash
-git worktree list | grep $(git branch --show-current)
-```
-
-If yes:
-
-```bash
-git worktree remove <worktree-path>
-```
-
-**For Option 3:** Keep worktree.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Option           | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch |
-| ---------------- | ----- | ---- | ------------- | -------------- |
-| 1. Merge locally | ✓     | -    | -             | ✓              |
-| 2. Create PR     | -     | ✓    | ✓             | -              |
-| 3. Keep as-is    | -     | -    | ✓             | -              |
-| 4. Discard       | -     | -    | -             | ✓ (force)      |
-
-## Common Mistakes
-
-**Skipping test verification**
-
-- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
-- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
-
-**Open-ended questions**
-
-- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" → ambiguous
-- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options
-
-**Automatic worktree cleanup**
-
-- **Problem:** Remove worktree when might need it (Option 2, 3)
-- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
-
-**No confirmation for discard**
-
-- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
-- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-
-- Proceed with failing tests
-- Merge without verifying tests on result
-- Delete work without confirmation
-- Force-push without explicit request
-
-**Always:**
-
-- Verify tests before offering options
-- Present exactly 4 options
-- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
-- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
-
-## Integration
-
-**Called by:**
-
-- **subagent-driven-development** (Step 7) - After all tasks complete
-- **executing-plans** (Step 5) - After all batches complete
-
-**Pairs with:**
-
-- **using-git-worktrees** - Cleans up worktree created by that skill

package/agent-skills/superpowers/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,226 +0,0 @@
----
-name: receiving-code-review
-description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
----
-
-# Code Review Reception
-
-## Overview
-
-Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
-
-**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
-
-## The Response Pattern
-
-```
-WHEN receiving code review feedback:
-
-1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
-2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
-3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
-4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
-5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
-6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
-```
-
-## Forbidden Responses
-
-**NEVER:**
-
-- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
-- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
-- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
-
-**INSTEAD:**
-
-- Restate the technical requirement
-- Ask clarifying questions
-- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
-- Just start working (actions > words)
-
-## Handling Unclear Feedback
-
-```
-IF any item is unclear:
-  STOP - do not implement anything yet
-  ASK for clarification on unclear items
-
-WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
-```
-
-**Example:**
-
-```
-your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-
-❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
-✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
-```
-
-## Source-Specific Handling
-
-### From your human partner
-
-- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
-- **Still ask** if scope unclear
-- **No performative agreement**
-- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
-
-### From External Reviewers
-
-```
-BEFORE implementing:
-  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
-  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
-  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
-  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
-  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
-
-IF suggestion seems wrong:
-  Push back with technical reasoning
-
-IF can't easily verify:
-  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
-
-IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
-  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
-```
-
-**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
-
-## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
-
-```
-IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
-  grep codebase for actual usage
-
-  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
-  IF used: Then implement properly
-```
-
-**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
-
-## Implementation Order
-
-```
-FOR multi-item feedback:
-  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
-  2. Then implement in this order:
-     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
-     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
-     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
-  3. Test each fix individually
-  4. Verify no regressions
-```
-
-## When To Push Back
-
-Push back when:
-
-- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
-- Reviewer lacks full context
-- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
-- Technically incorrect for this stack
-- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
-- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
-
-**How to push back:**
-
-- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
-- Ask specific questions
-- Reference working tests/code
-- Involve your human partner if architectural
-
-**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
-
-## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
-
-When feedback IS correct:
-
-```
-✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
-✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
-✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
-
-❌ "You're absolutely right!"
-❌ "Great point!"
-❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
-❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
-❌ ANY gratitude expression
-```
-
-**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
-
-**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
-
-## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
-
-If you pushed back and were wrong:
-
-```
-✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
-✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
-
-❌ Long apology
-❌ Defending why you pushed back
-❌ Over-explaining
-```
-
-State the correction factually and move on.
-
-## Common Mistakes
-
-| Mistake                      | Fix                                 |
-| ---------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |
-| Performative agreement       | State requirement or just act       |
-| Blind implementation         | Verify against codebase first       |
-| Batch without testing        | One at a time, test each            |
-| Assuming reviewer is right   | Check if breaks things              |
-| Avoiding pushback            | Technical correctness > comfort     |
-| Partial implementation       | Clarify all items first             |
-| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
-
-## Real Examples
-
-**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
-
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
-```
-
-**Technical Verification (Good):**
-
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
-```
-
-**YAGNI (Good):**
-
-```
-Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
-✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
-```
-
-**Unclear Item (Good):**
-
-```
-your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
-```
-
-## GitHub Thread Replies
-
-When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
-
-Verify. Question. Then implement.
-
-No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/agent-skills/superpowers/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,115 +0,0 @@
----
-name: requesting-code-review
-description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
----
-
-# Requesting Code Review
-
-Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
-
-**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
-
-## When to Request Review
-
-**Mandatory:**
-
-- After each task in subagent-driven development
-- After completing major feature
-- Before merge to main
-
-**Optional but valuable:**
-
-- When stuck (fresh perspective)
-- Before refactoring (baseline check)
-- After fixing complex bug
-
-## How to Request
-
-**1. Get git SHAs:**
-
-```bash
-BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-```
-
-**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
-
-Use Task tool with code-reviewer type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
-
-**Placeholders:**
-
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
-- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
-- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
-
-**3. Act on feedback:**
-
-- Fix Critical issues immediately
-- Fix Important issues before proceeding
-- Note Minor issues for later
-- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
-
-## Example
-
-```
-[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
-
-You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
-
-BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-
-[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
-  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
-  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
-  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
-  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
-  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
-
-[Subagent returns]:
-  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
-  Issues:
-    Important: Missing progress indicators
-    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
-  Assessment: Ready to proceed
-
-You: [Fix progress indicators]
-[Continue to Task 3]
-```
-
-## Integration with Workflows
-
-**Subagent-Driven Development:**
-
-- Review after EACH task
-- Catch issues before they compound
-- Fix before moving to next task
-
-**Executing Plans:**
-
-- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
-- Get feedback, apply, continue
-
-**Ad-Hoc Development:**
-
-- Review before merge
-- Review when stuck
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-
-- Skip review because "it's simple"
-- Ignore Critical issues
-- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
-- Argue with valid technical feedback
-
-**If reviewer wrong:**
-
-- Push back with technical reasoning
-- Show code/tests that prove it works
-- Request clarification
-
-See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

package/agent-skills/superpowers/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
-# Code Review Agent
-
-You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.
-
-**Your task:**
-
-1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
-3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
-4. Categorize issues by severity
-5. Assess production readiness
-
-## What Was Implemented
-
-{DESCRIPTION}
-
-## Requirements/Plan
-
-{PLAN_REFERENCE}
-
-## Git Range to Review
-
-**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
-**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
-
-```bash
-git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-```
-
-## Review Checklist
-
-**Code Quality:**
-
-- Clean separation of concerns?
-- Proper error handling?
-- Type safety (if applicable)?
-- DRY principle followed?
-- Edge cases handled?
-
-**Architecture:**
-
-- Sound design decisions?
-- Scalability considerations?
-- Performance implications?
-- Security concerns?
-
-**Testing:**
-
-- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
-- Edge cases covered?
-- Integration tests where needed?
-- All tests passing?
-
-**Requirements:**
-
-- All plan requirements met?
-- Implementation matches spec?
-- No scope creep?
-- Breaking changes documented?
-
-**Production Readiness:**
-
-- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
-- Backward compatibility considered?
-- Documentation complete?
-- No obvious bugs?
-
-## Output Format
-
-### Strengths
-
-[What's well done? Be specific.]
-
-### Issues
-
-#### Critical (Must Fix)
-
-[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
-
-#### Important (Should Fix)
-
-[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
-
-#### Minor (Nice to Have)
-
-[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
-
-**For each issue:**
-
-- File:line reference
-- What's wrong
-- Why it matters
-- How to fix (if not obvious)
-
-### Recommendations
-
-[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]
-
-**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]
-
-## Critical Rules
-
-**DO:**
-
-- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
-- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
-- Explain WHY issues matter
-- Acknowledge strengths
-- Give clear verdict
-
-**DON'T:**
-
-- Say "looks good" without checking
-- Mark nitpicks as Critical
-- Give feedback on code you didn't review
-- Be vague ("improve error handling")
-- Avoid giving a clear verdict
-
-## Example Output
-
-```
-### Strengths
-- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
-- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
-- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
-
-### Issues
-
-#### Important
-1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
-   - File: index-conversations:1-31
-   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
-   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
-
-2. **Date validation missing**
-   - File: search.ts:25-27
-   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
-   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
-
-#### Minor
-1. **Progress indicators**
-   - File: indexer.ts:130
-   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
-   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
-
-### Recommendations
-- Add progress reporting for user experience
-- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge: With fixes**
-
-**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
-```