superkit-mcp-server 1.1.4 → 1.2.0

package/skills/workflows/plan_review.md

@@ -1,269 +1,269 @@
----
-description: Review implementation plans for quality and completeness. Use before starting work on a plan.
----
-
-# /plan_review - Plan Quality Review
-
-Review an implementation plan for completeness and quality before execution.
-
-> **Why review plans?** A flawed plan leads to wasted effort. 10 minutes of review can save hours of rework.
-
-## When To Use
-
-- Before starting `/work` on any plan
-- When inheriting a plan from another session
-- For self-review of your own plans
-- Reviewing a specification from `/specs`
-
----
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Step 0: Search for Existing Solutions
-
-> [!CAUTION]
-> **BLOCKING STEP.** Before reviewing the plan's approach, verify we're not reinventing the wheel.
-
-```bash
-// turbo
-Call MCP `call_tool_logger_manager` { action: "logWorkflow", name: "/plan_review", outcome: "success" }
-Call MCP `call_tool_compound_manager` { action: "search", terms: [ "{main problem keywords}"] }
-Call MCP `call_tool_logger_manager` { action: "logSkill", name: "compound-docs", outcome: "workflow" }
-```
-
-**See also:** `skills/compound-docs/SKILL.md` for cross-referencing findings.
-
-**If solutions found:**
-1. Cross-reference with the plan's approach — are we reinventing?
-2. Update references if the plan should use existing solutions:
-   ```bash
-   // turbo
-   Call MCP `call_tool_compound_manager` { action: "updateRef", files: ["{paths}"] }
-   ```
-
-#### ⛔ CHECKPOINT: Did the plan author run compound-search?
-
-- [ ] Plan includes "## Prior Solutions" section (or explicitly states "none found")?
-- [ ] If existing solutions apply, are they referenced in the approach?
-
-**Flag missing compound search as a review concern.**
-
----
-
-### Step 1: Load Plan
-
-Read the plan file and understand the scope:
-
-```bash
-cat plans/{plan-name}.md
-```
-
----
-
-### Step 2: Check Completeness
-
-**Requirements:**
-- [ ] Problem statement clear and specific
-- [ ] Success criteria defined and measurable
-- [ ] Scope boundaries explicit (what's in/out)
-
-**Research:**
-- [ ] Codebase patterns referenced
-- [ ] Best practices cited or linked
-- [ ] Alternatives considered and rejected with reasons
-
-**Implementation:**
-- [ ] Steps actionable (not vague)
-- [ ] Dependencies identified
-- [ ] Risks acknowledged with mitigations
-
-**Lifecycle:**
-- [ ] Verification plan included
-- [ ] Related specs/todos referenced (if any)
-
----
-
-### Step 2.5: Spec-Specific Checks (If Reviewing a Spec)
-
-**If verifying a `docs/specs/` document:**
-- [ ] Phases have clear exit criteria in `03-tasks.md`
-- [ ] `00-START-HERE.md` restores context in <2 minutes
-- [ ] `04-decisions.md` initialized (even if empty)
-- [ ] `README.md` dashboard accurately reflects current status
-
----
-
-### Step 3: Deep Gap Analysis
-
-> [!CAUTION]
-> This step requires deliberate, slow thinking. Question everything.
-
-**Did the plan think hard enough?**
-- [ ] Are 2nd-4th order effects considered?
-- [ ] Are long-term implications (6mo, 1yr) addressed?
-- [ ] Is the approach reversible if assumptions are wrong?
-
-**Edge Case Coverage (Leave No Stone Unturned):**
-- [ ] Boundary conditions (min, max, at-limit)
-- [ ] Failure modes (network, DB, external services)
-- [ ] Concurrent access / race conditions
-- [ ] Data extremes and migration scenarios
-- [ ] User behavior edge cases
-
-**Security & Privacy Analysis (@mcp:superkit):**
-- [ ] Does the plan introduce potential Injection, Broken Access Control, or Privilege Escalation flaws?
-- [ ] Are Privacy Sources (e.g. PII) routed properly and sanitized before reaching Privacy Sinks?
-- [ ] Execute security review prompts/checks utilizing `@mcp:superkit` for architectural security validation.
-
-**Reproducibility and Transparency (Scientific Review):**
-- [ ] **Data/State Availability:** Are initial states, dummy data, or prerequisites clearly defined?
-- [ ] **Methodological Detail:** Could an independent agent perfectly execute this plan without asking you clarifying questions? 
-- [ ] **Reporting Standards:** Does the plan link to specific codebase conventions (e.g. `CONVENTIONS.md`)?
-
-**Stakeholder Impact (Who else is affected?):**
-- [ ] End users notified of behavior changes?
-- [ ] Breaking changes communicated to other devs?
-- [ ] Ops/support aware of new failure modes?
-- [ ] Downstream integrations considered?
-
-**Standard Gap Checks:**
-- [ ] Missing dependencies
-- [ ] Unclear requirements / unstated assumptions
-- [ ] **Missing compound solutions** (did we search before planning?)
-
----
-
-### Step 4: Provide Feedback
-
-Maintain a constructive, objective, and professional tone (Scientific Peer Review Standard):
-- **Be constructive:** Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement.
-- **Be specific:** Provide concrete examples and actionable suggestions.
-- **Be balanced:** Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses.
-
-```markdown
-## Plan Review: {Plan Name}
-
-### Summary Statement
-- {Brief synopsis of the plan and bottom-line assessment of soundness}
-
-### Strengths
-- {What's good about the plan}
-
-### Major Concerns (Critical)
-- {Issues that fundamentally break the plan or block reproducibility}
-
-### Minor Suggestions (Improvements)
-- {Improvements to consider}
-
-### Questions for Author
-- {Clarifications needed before execution}
-
-### Existing Solutions Referenced
-- {Any solutions from docs/solutions/ that apply}
-
-### Verdict
-- [ ] Ready to execute
-- [ ] Needs minor revisions
-- [ ] Needs major revisions
-```
-
----
-
-### Step 5: Update Plan Status
-
-If approved, update the plan:
-
-```markdown
-> Status: Completed ✓
-```
-
----
-
-### Step 6: Proceed to Execution (If Approved)
-
-Once the plan is approved and the status is updated:
-
-> [!IMPORTANT]
-> **Workflow Transition**
-> Do not execute the plan ad-hoc. Transition immediately to the **/work** workflow.
-
-```bash
-# Start the work workflow
-/work
-```
-
----
-
-### Step 7: Create Revision Todo (CONDITIONAL)
-
-**If Verdict is "Needs major revisions":**
-
-> [!CAUTION]
-> **Action Required.** Don't just leave feedback in the chat. Create a todo for the revision work.
-
-```bash
-Call MCP `call_tool_todo_manager` { action: "create", priority: "p1", title: "Revise Plan: ${plan_name}", description: "TODO description" }
-  "Plan review identified major issues in plans/${plan_name}.md that need to be addressed before execution can proceed.\n\nConcerns:\n(Paste summary of concerns here)" \
-  "Revise plan to address concerns" \
-  "Re-request review"
-```
-
----
-
-### Phase 5: Completion & Handoff
-
-#### Step 1: Establish Terminal UI State
-
-> [!IMPORTANT]
-> **Visual Completion Signal**
-> Call `task_boundary` one last time to signal completion in the user's UI. This prevents the "task" from appearing active after you've finished.
-
-```javascript
-await task_boundary({
-  TaskName: "[COMPLETED] Plan Review: {Plan Name}",
-  TaskStatus: "Review complete. Offering next steps.",
-  Mode: "VERIFICATION",
-  TaskSummary: "Completed plan review for {plan name}. Verdict: {Ready/Needs Revisions}. {Key findings summary}."
-});
-```
-
-#### Step 2: Mandatory Handoff
-
-> [!IMPORTANT]
-> **Exit Transition**
-> Do not stop here. Offer the user clear paths to the next logical workflow.
-
-```bash
-✓ Review complete
-
-Next steps:
-1. /work - Execute the approved plan (if verdict: Ready)
-2. Revise plan - Address review concerns (if verdict: Needs Revisions)
-3. /specs - Elevate to specification if scope expanded during review
-4. Create revision todo - For major revision tracking
-```
-
----
-
-## Quality Guidelines
-
-**Good reviews:**
-- ✅ Check compound solutions first
-- ✅ Verify measurable success criteria
-- ✅ Confirm scope boundaries
-- ✅ Validate risks are acknowledged
-
-**Avoid:**
-- ❌ Rubber-stamping without reading
-- ❌ Skipping compound search
-- ❌ Ignoring missing success criteria
-
----
-
-## References
-
-- Create plans: `/plan`
-- Execute plans: `/work`
-- Search solutions: `Call MCP `call_tool_compound_manager` { action: "search", terms: [] }`
-- Archive when done: `/housekeeping`
-
+---
+description: Review implementation plans for quality and completeness. Use before starting work on a plan.
+---
+
+# /plan_review - Plan Quality Review
+
+Review an implementation plan for completeness and quality before execution.
+
+> **Why review plans?** A flawed plan leads to wasted effort. 10 minutes of review can save hours of rework.
+
+## When To Use
+
+- Before starting `/work` on any plan
+- When inheriting a plan from another session
+- For self-review of your own plans
+- Reviewing a specification from `/specs`
+
+---
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 0: Search for Existing Solutions
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **BLOCKING STEP.** Before reviewing the plan's approach, verify we're not reinventing the wheel.
+
+```bash
+// turbo
+Call MCP `call_tool_logger_manager` { action: "logWorkflow", name: "/plan_review", outcome: "success" }
+Call MCP `call_tool_compound_manager` { action: "search", terms: [ "{main problem keywords}"] }
+Call MCP `call_tool_logger_manager` { action: "logSkill", name: "compound-docs", outcome: "workflow" }
+```
+
+**See also:** `skills/compound-docs/SKILL.md` for cross-referencing findings.
+
+**If solutions found:**
+1. Cross-reference with the plan's approach — are we reinventing?
+2. Update references if the plan should use existing solutions:
+   ```bash
+   // turbo
+   Call MCP `call_tool_compound_manager` { action: "updateRef", files: ["{paths}"] }
+   ```
+
+#### ⛔ CHECKPOINT: Did the plan author run compound-search?
+
+- [ ] Plan includes "## Prior Solutions" section (or explicitly states "none found")?
+- [ ] If existing solutions apply, are they referenced in the approach?
+
+**Flag missing compound search as a review concern.**
+
+---
+
+### Step 1: Load Plan
+
+Read the plan file and understand the scope:
+
+```bash
+cat plans/{plan-name}.md
+```
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Check Completeness
+
+**Requirements:**
+- [ ] Problem statement clear and specific
+- [ ] Success criteria defined and measurable
+- [ ] Scope boundaries explicit (what's in/out)
+
+**Research:**
+- [ ] Codebase patterns referenced
+- [ ] Best practices cited or linked
+- [ ] Alternatives considered and rejected with reasons
+
+**Implementation:**
+- [ ] Steps actionable (not vague)
+- [ ] Dependencies identified
+- [ ] Risks acknowledged with mitigations
+
+**Lifecycle:**
+- [ ] Verification plan included
+- [ ] Related specs/todos referenced (if any)
+
+---
+
+### Step 2.5: Spec-Specific Checks (If Reviewing a Spec)
+
+**If verifying a `docs/specs/` document:**
+- [ ] Phases have clear exit criteria in `03-tasks.md`
+- [ ] `00-START-HERE.md` restores context in <2 minutes
+- [ ] `04-decisions.md` initialized (even if empty)
+- [ ] `README.md` dashboard accurately reflects current status
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Deep Gap Analysis
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> This step requires deliberate, slow thinking. Question everything.
+
+**Did the plan think hard enough?**
+- [ ] Are 2nd-4th order effects considered?
+- [ ] Are long-term implications (6mo, 1yr) addressed?
+- [ ] Is the approach reversible if assumptions are wrong?
+
+**Edge Case Coverage (Leave No Stone Unturned):**
+- [ ] Boundary conditions (min, max, at-limit)
+- [ ] Failure modes (network, DB, external services)
+- [ ] Concurrent access / race conditions
+- [ ] Data extremes and migration scenarios
+- [ ] User behavior edge cases
+
+**Security & Privacy Analysis (@mcp:superkit):**
+- [ ] Does the plan introduce potential Injection, Broken Access Control, or Privilege Escalation flaws?
+- [ ] Are Privacy Sources (e.g. PII) routed properly and sanitized before reaching Privacy Sinks?
+- [ ] Execute security review prompts/checks utilizing `@mcp:superkit` for architectural security validation.
+
+**Reproducibility and Transparency (Scientific Review):**
+- [ ] **Data/State Availability:** Are initial states, dummy data, or prerequisites clearly defined?
+- [ ] **Methodological Detail:** Could an independent agent perfectly execute this plan without asking you clarifying questions? 
+- [ ] **Reporting Standards:** Does the plan link to specific codebase conventions (e.g. `CONVENTIONS.md`)?
+
+**Stakeholder Impact (Who else is affected?):**
+- [ ] End users notified of behavior changes?
+- [ ] Breaking changes communicated to other devs?
+- [ ] Ops/support aware of new failure modes?
+- [ ] Downstream integrations considered?
+
+**Standard Gap Checks:**
+- [ ] Missing dependencies
+- [ ] Unclear requirements / unstated assumptions
+- [ ] **Missing compound solutions** (did we search before planning?)
+
+---
+
+### Step 4: Provide Feedback
+
+Maintain a constructive, objective, and professional tone (Scientific Peer Review Standard):
+- **Be constructive:** Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement.
+- **Be specific:** Provide concrete examples and actionable suggestions.
+- **Be balanced:** Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses.
+
+```markdown
+## Plan Review: {Plan Name}
+
+### Summary Statement
+- {Brief synopsis of the plan and bottom-line assessment of soundness}
+
+### Strengths
+- {What's good about the plan}
+
+### Major Concerns (Critical)
+- {Issues that fundamentally break the plan or block reproducibility}
+
+### Minor Suggestions (Improvements)
+- {Improvements to consider}
+
+### Questions for Author
+- {Clarifications needed before execution}
+
+### Existing Solutions Referenced
+- {Any solutions from docs/solutions/ that apply}
+
+### Verdict
+- [ ] Ready to execute
+- [ ] Needs minor revisions
+- [ ] Needs major revisions
+```
+
+---
+
+### Step 5: Update Plan Status
+
+If approved, update the plan:
+
+```markdown
+> Status: Completed ✓
+```
+
+---
+
+### Step 6: Proceed to Execution (If Approved)
+
+Once the plan is approved and the status is updated:
+
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> **Workflow Transition**
+> Do not execute the plan ad-hoc. Transition immediately to the **/work** workflow.
+
+```bash
+# Start the work workflow
+/work
+```
+
+---
+
+### Step 7: Create Revision Todo (CONDITIONAL)
+
+**If Verdict is "Needs major revisions":**
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Action Required.** Don't just leave feedback in the chat. Create a todo for the revision work.
+
+```bash
+Call MCP `call_tool_todo_manager` { action: "create", priority: "p1", title: "Revise Plan: ${plan_name}", description: "TODO description" }
+  "Plan review identified major issues in plans/${plan_name}.md that need to be addressed before execution can proceed.\n\nConcerns:\n(Paste summary of concerns here)" \
+  "Revise plan to address concerns" \
+  "Re-request review"
+```
+
+---
+
+### Phase 5: Completion & Handoff
+
+#### Step 1: Establish Terminal UI State
+
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> **Visual Completion Signal**
+> Call `task_boundary` one last time to signal completion in the user's UI. This prevents the "task" from appearing active after you've finished.
+
+```javascript
+await task_boundary({
+  TaskName: "[COMPLETED] Plan Review: {Plan Name}",
+  TaskStatus: "Review complete. Offering next steps.",
+  Mode: "VERIFICATION",
+  TaskSummary: "Completed plan review for {plan name}. Verdict: {Ready/Needs Revisions}. {Key findings summary}."
+});
+```
+
+#### Step 2: Mandatory Handoff
+
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> **Exit Transition**
+> Do not stop here. Offer the user clear paths to the next logical workflow.
+
+```bash
+✓ Review complete
+
+Next steps:
+1. /work - Execute the approved plan (if verdict: Ready)
+2. Revise plan - Address review concerns (if verdict: Needs Revisions)
+3. /specs - Elevate to specification if scope expanded during review
+4. Create revision todo - For major revision tracking
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quality Guidelines
+
+**Good reviews:**
+- ✅ Check compound solutions first
+- ✅ Verify measurable success criteria
+- ✅ Confirm scope boundaries
+- ✅ Validate risks are acknowledged
+
+**Avoid:**
+- ❌ Rubber-stamping without reading
+- ❌ Skipping compound search
+- ❌ Ignoring missing success criteria
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Create plans: `/plan`
+- Execute plans: `/work`
+- Search solutions: `Call MCP `call_tool_compound_manager` { action: "search", terms: [] }`
+- Archive when done: `/housekeeping`
+

package/skills/workflows/primary-workflow.md

@@ -1,37 +1,37 @@
----
-name: primary-workflow
-description: Information about the primary workflow commands, including /cook for complex features and other quick tasks.
----
-
-# Primary Workflow
-
-## The `/cook` Workflow
-
-```
-/cook [task description]
-```
-
-### Steps
-
-1. **Planning** - `/plan`
-2. **Scouting** - `/scout`
-3. **Coding** - Implement
-4. **Testing** - `/test`
-5. **Reviewing** - `/review`
-6. **Committing** - `/git`
-
-## Quick Workflows
-
-| Task | Command |
-|------|---------|
-| New feature | `/cook implement` |
-| Bug fix | `/cook fix` |
-| Refactoring | `/cook refactor` |
-| Full audit | `/cook full review` |
-
-## When to Use
-
-- **Simple change**: `/code` or `/fix`
-- **Complex feature**: `/cook`
-- **Code quality**: `/review`
-- **Explore**: `/scout`
+---
+name: primary-workflow
+description: Information about the primary workflow commands, including /cook for complex features and other quick tasks.
+---
+
+# Primary Workflow
+
+## The `/cook` Workflow
+
+```
+/cook [task description]
+```
+
+### Steps
+
+1. **Planning** - `/plan`
+2. **Scouting** - `/scout`
+3. **Coding** - Implement
+4. **Testing** - `/test`
+5. **Reviewing** - `/review`
+6. **Committing** - `/git`
+
+## Quick Workflows
+
+| Task | Command |
+|------|---------|
+| New feature | `/cook implement` |
+| Bug fix | `/cook fix` |
+| Refactoring | `/cook refactor` |
+| Full audit | `/cook full review` |
+
+## When to Use
+
+- **Simple change**: `/code` or `/fix`
+- **Complex feature**: `/cook`
+- **Code quality**: `/review`
+- **Explore**: `/scout`