trellis-hgl 0.6.0-beta.18

package/dist/templates/common/skills/break-loop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Break the Loop - Deep Bug Analysis
+
+When debug is complete, use this for deep analysis to break the "fix bug -> forget -> repeat" cycle.
+
+---
+
+## Analysis Framework
+
+Analyze the bug you just fixed from these 5 dimensions:
+
+### 1. Root Cause Category
+
+Which category does this bug belong to?
+
+| Category | Characteristics | Example |
+|----------|-----------------|---------|
+| **A. Missing Spec** | No documentation on how to do it | New feature without checklist |
+| **B. Cross-Layer Contract** | Interface between layers unclear | API returns different format than expected |
+| **C. Change Propagation Failure** | Changed one place, missed others | Changed function signature, missed call sites |
+| **D. Test Coverage Gap** | Unit test passes, integration fails | Works alone, breaks when combined |
+| **E. Implicit Assumption** | Code relies on undocumented assumption | Timestamp seconds vs milliseconds |
+
+### 2. Why Fixes Failed (if applicable)
+
+If you tried multiple fixes before succeeding, analyze each failure:
+
+- **Surface Fix**: Fixed symptom, not root cause
+- **Incomplete Scope**: Found root cause, didn't cover all cases
+- **Tool Limitation**: grep missed it, type check wasn't strict
+- **Mental Model**: Kept looking in same layer, didn't think cross-layer
+
+### 3. Prevention Mechanisms
+
+What mechanisms would prevent this from happening again?
+
+| Type | Description | Example |
+|------|-------------|---------|
+| **Documentation** | Write it down so people know | Update thinking guide |
+| **Architecture** | Make the error impossible structurally | Type-safe wrappers |
+| **Compile-time** | Strict type checking, no escape hatches | Signature change causes compile error |
+| **Runtime** | Monitoring, alerts, scans | Detect orphan entities |
+| **Test Coverage** | E2E tests, integration tests | Verify full flow |
+| **Code Review** | Checklist, PR template | "Did you check X?" |
+
+### 4. Systematic Expansion
+
+What broader problems does this bug reveal?
+
+- **Similar Issues**: Where else might this problem exist?
+- **Design Flaw**: Is there a fundamental architecture issue?
+- **Process Flaw**: Is there a development process improvement?
+- **Knowledge Gap**: Is the team missing some understanding?
+
+### 5. Knowledge Capture
+
+Solidify insights into the system:
+
+- [ ] Update `.trellis/spec/guides/` thinking guides
+- [ ] Update relevant `.trellis/spec/` docs
+- [ ] Create issue record (if applicable)
+- [ ] Create feature ticket for root fix
+- [ ] Update check guidelines if needed
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+Please output analysis in this format:
+
+```markdown
+## Bug Analysis: [Short Description]
+
+### 1. Root Cause Category
+- **Category**: [A/B/C/D/E] - [Category Name]
+- **Specific Cause**: [Detailed description]
+
+### 2. Why Fixes Failed (if applicable)
+1. [First attempt]: [Why it failed]
+2. [Second attempt]: [Why it failed]
+...
+
+### 3. Prevention Mechanisms
+| Priority | Mechanism | Specific Action | Status |
+|----------|-----------|-----------------|--------|
+| P0 | ... | ... | TODO/DONE |
+
+### 4. Systematic Expansion
+- **Similar Issues**: [List places with similar problems]
+- **Design Improvement**: [Architecture-level suggestions]
+- **Process Improvement**: [Development process suggestions]
+
+### 5. Knowledge Capture
+- [ ] [Documents to update / tickets to create]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+> **The value of debugging is not in fixing the bug, but in making this class of bugs never happen again.**
+
+Three levels of insight:
+1. **Tactical**: How to fix THIS bug
+2. **Strategic**: How to prevent THIS CLASS of bugs
+3. **Philosophical**: How to expand thinking patterns
+
+30 minutes of analysis saves 30 hours of future debugging.
+
+---
+
+## After Analysis: Immediate Actions
+
+**IMPORTANT**: After completing the analysis above, you MUST immediately:
+
+1. **Update spec/guides** - Don't just list TODOs, actually update the relevant files:
+   - If it's a cross-platform issue → update `cross-platform-thinking-guide.md`
+   - If it's a cross-layer issue → update `cross-layer-thinking-guide.md`
+   - If it's a code reuse issue → update `code-reuse-thinking-guide.md`
+   - If it's domain-specific → update `backend/*.md` or `frontend/*.md`
+
+2. **Sync templates** - After updating `.trellis/spec/`, sync to `src/templates/markdown/spec/`
+
+3. **Commit the spec updates** - This is the primary output, not just the analysis text
+
+> **The analysis is worthless if it stays in chat. The value is in the updated specs.**

package/dist/templates/common/skills/check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Code Quality Check
+
+Comprehensive quality verification for recently written code. Combines spec compliance, cross-layer safety, and pre-commit checks.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Identify What Changed
+
+```bash
+git diff --name-only HEAD
+git status
+```
+
+## Step 2: Read Task Artifacts and Applicable Specs
+
+Read the current task artifacts in order:
+
+- `prd.md`
+- `design.md` if present
+- `implement.md` if present
+
+```bash
+python3 ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
+```
+
+For each changed package/layer, read the spec index and follow its **Quality Check** section:
+
+```bash
+cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
+```
+
+Read the specific guideline files referenced — the index is a pointer, not the goal.
+
+## Step 3: Run Project Checks
+
+Run the project's lint, type-check, and test commands. Fix any failures before proceeding.
+
+## Step 4: Review Against Checklist
+
+### Code Quality
+
+- [ ] Linter passes?
+- [ ] Type checker passes (if applicable)?
+- [ ] Tests pass?
+- [ ] No debug logging left in?
+- [ ] No suppressed warnings or type-safety bypasses?
+
+### Test Coverage
+
+- [ ] New function → unit test added?
+- [ ] Bug fix → regression test added?
+- [ ] Changed behavior → existing tests updated?
+
+### Spec Sync
+
+- [ ] Does `.trellis/spec/` need updates? (new patterns, conventions, lessons learned)
+
+> "If I fixed a bug or discovered something non-obvious, should I document it so future me won't hit the same issue?" → If YES, update the relevant spec doc.
+
+## Step 5: Cross-Layer Dimensions (if applicable)
+
+Skip this step if your change is confined to a single layer.
+
+### A. Data Flow (changes touch 3+ layers)
+
+- [ ] Read flow traces correctly: Storage → Service → API → UI
+- [ ] Write flow traces correctly: UI → API → Service → Storage
+- [ ] Types/schemas correctly passed between layers?
+- [ ] Errors properly propagated to caller?
+
+### B. Code Reuse (modifying constants, creating utilities)
+
+- [ ] Searched for existing similar code before creating new?
+  ```bash
+  grep -r "pattern" src/
+  ```
+- [ ] If 2+ places define same value → extracted to shared constant?
+- [ ] After batch modification, all occurrences updated?
+
+### C. Import/Dependency (creating new files)
+
+- [ ] Correct import paths (relative vs absolute)?
+- [ ] No circular dependencies?
+
+### D. Same-Layer Consistency
+
+- [ ] Other places using the same concept are consistent?
+
+---
+
+## Step 6: Report and Fix
+
+Report violations found and fix them directly. Re-run project checks after fixes.

package/dist/templates/common/skills/grill-me.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Trellis Grill Me
+
+Use this skill after the initial repository-first clarification pass, when the task still has requirement gaps that only the user can answer.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Drive a strict follow-up interview to tighten `prd.md` before implementation starts.
+
+This is the Trellis-built-in replacement for external `grill-me` dependency patterns. Do not rely on any local third-party skill path.
+
+## Entry Conditions
+
+Use this skill only when:
+- a Trellis task already exists
+- repository-answerable questions have already been resolved through inspection
+- the remaining uncertainty is about product intent, scope, preferences, trade-offs, or risk tolerance
+
+Do **not** use this skill for questions the codebase can answer directly.
+
+## Interview Contract
+
+- Ask one question at a time.
+- Each question must include:
+  - the exact decision needed
+  - why it matters
+  - your recommended answer
+  - what trade-off the user accepts if they choose differently
+- After each answer, update `prd.md` before asking the next question.
+- Stop once `prd.md` has converged enough to enter development-strategy decisions.
+
+## Questioning Style
+
+Push for missing details across these dimensions when relevant:
+- user-visible behavior
+- scope boundaries
+- success / failure behavior
+- edge cases
+- sequencing and rollout expectations
+- what is explicitly out of scope
+- what would make the user reject the implementation even if it "works"
+
+Prefer concrete trade-offs over generic brainstorming.
+
+## Output Standard
+
+By the time this skill is done:
+- `prd.md` has testable acceptance criteria
+- unresolved questions are truly strategic, not factual
+- implementation can move on to development mode / worktree / TDD decisions

package/dist/templates/common/skills/improve-codebase-architecture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Trellis Improve Codebase Architecture
+
+Use this skill when the user explicitly asks for architecture improvement, when a refactor is structurally risky, or when the workflow identifies a task as architecture-sensitive.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Reduce structural drift, prevent AI-generated spaghetti code, and converge on a simpler long-term shape before or during refactoring.
+
+## Core Responsibilities
+
+1. Identify the architectural problem being solved.
+2. Distinguish real structural issues from cosmetic cleanup.
+3. Reduce unnecessary abstraction, indirection, and speculative flexibility.
+4. Propose the smallest structural change that improves maintainability.
+5. Preserve task alignment — do not widen scope without a concrete reason.
+
+## Review Lens
+
+Challenge changes that introduce:
+- wrappers with no clear ownership value
+- abstractions created for hypothetical future reuse
+- configuration or strategy layers without current need
+- defensive branching for impossible internal states
+- refactors that move code around without improving boundaries
+
+Prefer:
+- direct control flow
+- explicit boundaries
+- behavior-centered module seams
+- changes justified by current requirements or proven maintenance pain
+
+## Output Standard
+
+When this skill is used, it should produce:
+- the architectural concern in plain language
+- the smallest acceptable direction to fix it
+- what not to add
+- what must stay aligned with current task scope

package/dist/templates/common/skills/tdd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+# Trellis TDD
+
+Use this skill when the task's chosen development strategy is TDD, or when the user explicitly asks to work test-first.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Turn a task into observable behavior slices and drive implementation through failing tests first.
+
+This is the Trellis-built-in replacement for external local TDD references. Do not rely on any local third-party skill path.
+
+## Core Flow
+
+1. Identify the smallest observable behavior slice.
+2. Define the public interface under test.
+3. Decide the mock boundaries before writing tests.
+4. Write the failing test first.
+5. Implement the smallest code change that makes it pass.
+6. Refactor only after the test is green.
+7. Repeat slice by slice.
+
+## Rules
+
+- Keep slices small and user-observable.
+- Prefer testing public behavior over internal helpers.
+- Do not batch multiple behavior changes into one red-green cycle.
+- If a task artifact already records acceptance criteria, map tests back to them.
+- Keep review gates aligned with the chosen TDD strategy.
+
+## Output Standard
+
+By the time this skill is done:
+- tests lead the implementation order
+- each behavior slice is backed by an explicit test
+- the task artifacts clearly reflect TDD as the chosen strategy

package/dist/templates/common/skills/update-spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
+# Update Code-Spec - Capture Executable Contracts
+
+When you learn something valuable (from debugging, implementing, or discussion), use this to update the relevant code-spec documents.
+
+**Timing**: After completing a task, fixing a bug, or discovering a new pattern
+
+---
+
+## Code-Spec First Rule (CRITICAL)
+
+In this project, "spec" for implementation work means **code-spec**:
+- Executable contracts (not principle-only text)
+- Concrete signatures, payload fields, env keys, and boundary behavior
+- Testable validation/error behavior
+
+If the change touches infra or cross-layer contracts, code-spec depth is mandatory.
+
+### Mandatory Triggers
+
+Apply code-spec depth when the change includes any of:
+- New/changed command or API signature
+- Cross-layer request/response contract change
+- Database schema/migration change
+- Infra integration (storage, queue, cache, secrets, env wiring)
+
+### Mandatory Output (7 Sections)
+
+For triggered tasks, include all sections below:
+1. Scope / Trigger
+2. Signatures (command/API/DB)
+3. Contracts (request/response/env)
+4. Validation & Error Matrix
+5. Good/Base/Bad Cases
+6. Tests Required (with assertion points)
+7. Wrong vs Correct (at least one pair)
+
+---
+
+## When to Update Code-Specs
+
+| Trigger | Example | Target Spec |
+|---------|---------|-------------|
+| **Implemented a feature** | Added a new integration or module | Relevant spec file |
+| **Made a design decision** | Chose extensibility pattern over simplicity | Relevant spec + "Design Decisions" section |
+| **Fixed a bug** | Found a subtle issue with error handling | Relevant spec (e.g., error-handling docs) |
+| **Discovered a pattern** | Found a better way to structure code | Relevant spec file |
+| **Hit a gotcha** | Learned that X must be done before Y | Relevant spec + "Common Mistakes" section |
+| **Established a convention** | Team agreed on naming pattern | Quality guidelines |
+| **New thinking trigger** | "Don't forget to check X before doing Y" | `guides/*.md` (as a checklist item) |
+
+**Key Insight**: Code-spec updates are NOT just for problems. Every feature implementation contains design decisions and contracts that future AI/developers need to execute safely.
+
+---
+
+## Spec Structure Overview
+
+```
+.trellis/spec/
+├── <layer>/           # Per-layer coding standards (e.g., backend/, frontend/, api/)
+│   ├── index.md       # Overview and links
+│   └── *.md           # Topic-specific guidelines
+└── guides/            # Thinking checklists (NOT coding specs!)
+    ├── index.md       # Guide index
+    └── *.md           # Topic-specific guides
+```
+
+### CRITICAL: Code-Spec vs Guide - Know the Difference
+
+| Type | Location | Purpose | Content Style |
+|------|----------|---------|---------------|
+| **Code-Spec** | `<layer>/*.md` | Tell AI "how to implement safely" | Signatures, contracts, matrices, cases, test points |
+| **Guide** | `guides/*.md` | Help AI "what to think about" | Checklists, questions, pointers to specs |
+
+**Decision Rule**: Ask yourself:
+
+- "This is **how to write** the code" → Put in a spec layer directory
+- "This is **what to consider** before writing" → Put in `guides/`
+
+**Example**:
+
+| Learning | Wrong Location | Correct Location |
+|----------|----------------|------------------|
+| "Use API X not API Y for this task" | ❌ `guides/` (too specific for a thinking guide) | ✅ Relevant spec file (concrete convention) |
+| "Remember to check X when doing Y" | ❌ Spec file (too abstract for a spec) | ✅ `guides/` (thinking checklist) |
+
+**Guides should be short checklists that point to specs**, not duplicate the detailed rules.
+
+---
+
+## Update Process
+
+### Step 1: Identify What You Learned
+
+Answer these questions:
+
+1. **What did you learn?** (Be specific)
+2. **Why is it important?** (What problem does it prevent?)
+3. **Where does it belong?** (Which spec file?)
+
+### Step 2: Classify the Update Type
+
+| Type | Description | Action |
+|------|-------------|--------|
+| **Design Decision** | Why we chose approach X over Y | Add to "Design Decisions" section |
+| **Project Convention** | How we do X in this project | Add to relevant section with examples |
+| **New Pattern** | A reusable approach discovered | Add to "Patterns" section |
+| **Forbidden Pattern** | Something that causes problems | Add to "Anti-patterns" or "Don't" section |
+| **Common Mistake** | Easy-to-make error | Add to "Common Mistakes" section |
+| **Convention** | Agreed-upon standard | Add to relevant section |
+| **Gotcha** | Non-obvious behavior | Add warning callout |
+
+### Step 3: Read the Target Code-Spec
+
+Before editing, read the current code-spec to:
+- Understand existing structure
+- Avoid duplicating content
+- Find the right section for your update
+
+```bash
+cat .trellis/spec/<category>/<file>.md
+```
+
+### Step 4: Make the Update
+
+Follow these principles:
+
+1. **Be Specific**: Include concrete examples, not just abstract rules
+2. **Explain Why**: State the problem this prevents
+3. **Show Contracts**: Add signatures, payload fields, and error behavior
+4. **Show Code**: Add code snippets for key patterns
+5. **Keep it Short**: One concept per section
+
+### Step 5: Update the Index (if needed)
+
+If you added a new section or the code-spec status changed, update the category's `index.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Update Templates
+
+### Mandatory Template for Infra/Cross-Layer Work
+
+```markdown
+## Scenario: <name>
+
+### 1. Scope / Trigger
+- Trigger: <why this requires code-spec depth>
+
+### 2. Signatures
+- Backend command/API/DB signature(s)
+
+### 3. Contracts
+- Request fields (name, type, constraints)
+- Response fields (name, type, constraints)
+- Environment keys (required/optional)
+
+### 4. Validation & Error Matrix
+- <condition> -> <error>
+
+### 5. Good/Base/Bad Cases
+- Good: ...
+- Base: ...
+- Bad: ...
+
+### 6. Tests Required
+- Unit/Integration/E2E with assertion points
+
+### 7. Wrong vs Correct
+#### Wrong
+...
+#### Correct
+...
+```
+
+### Adding a Design Decision
+
+```markdown
+### Design Decision: [Decision Name]
+
+**Context**: What problem were we solving?
+
+**Options Considered**:
+1. Option A - brief description
+2. Option B - brief description
+
+**Decision**: We chose Option X because...
+
+**Example**:
+\`\`\`typescript
+// How it's implemented
+code example
+\`\`\`
+
+**Extensibility**: How to extend this in the future...
+```
+
+### Adding a Project Convention
+
+```markdown
+### Convention: [Convention Name]
+
+**What**: Brief description of the convention.
+
+**Why**: Why we do it this way in this project.
+
+**Example**:
+\`\`\`typescript
+// How to follow this convention
+code example
+\`\`\`
+
+**Related**: Links to related conventions or specs.
+```
+
+### Adding a New Pattern
+
+```markdown
+### Pattern Name
+
+**Problem**: What problem does this solve?
+
+**Solution**: Brief description of the approach.
+
+**Example**:
+\`\`\`
+// Good
+code example
+
+// Bad
+code example
+\`\`\`
+
+**Why**: Explanation of why this works better.
+```
+
+### Adding a Forbidden Pattern
+
+```markdown
+### Don't: Pattern Name
+
+**Problem**:
+\`\`\`
+// Don't do this
+bad code example
+\`\`\`
+
+**Why it's bad**: Explanation of the issue.
+
+**Instead**:
+\`\`\`
+// Do this instead
+good code example
+\`\`\`
+```
+
+### Adding a Common Mistake
+
+```markdown
+### Common Mistake: Description
+
+**Symptom**: What goes wrong
+
+**Cause**: Why this happens
+
+**Fix**: How to correct it
+
+**Prevention**: How to avoid it in the future
+```
+
+### Adding a Gotcha
+
+```markdown
+> **Warning**: Brief description of the non-obvious behavior.
+>
+> Details about when this happens and how to handle it.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Interactive Mode
+
+If you're unsure what to update, answer these prompts:
+
+1. **What did you just finish?**
+   - [ ] Fixed a bug
+   - [ ] Implemented a feature
+   - [ ] Refactored code
+   - [ ] Had a discussion about approach
+
+2. **What did you learn or decide?**
+   - Design decision (why X over Y)
+   - Project convention (how we do X)
+   - Non-obvious behavior (gotcha)
+   - Better approach (pattern)
+
+3. **Would future AI/developers need to know this?**
+   - To understand how the code works → Yes, update spec
+   - To maintain or extend the feature → Yes, update spec
+   - To avoid repeating mistakes → Yes, update spec
+   - Purely one-off implementation detail → Maybe skip
+
+4. **Which area does it relate to?**
+   - [ ] Backend code
+   - [ ] Frontend code
+   - [ ] Cross-layer data flow
+   - [ ] Code organization/reuse
+   - [ ] Quality/testing
+
+---
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+Before finishing your code-spec update:
+
+- [ ] Is the content specific and actionable?
+- [ ] Did you include a code example?
+- [ ] Did you explain WHY, not just WHAT?
+- [ ] Did you include executable signatures/contracts?
+- [ ] Did you include validation and error matrix?
+- [ ] Did you include Good/Base/Bad cases?
+- [ ] Did you include required tests with assertion points?
+- [ ] Is it in the right code-spec file?
+- [ ] Does it duplicate existing content?
+- [ ] Would a new team member understand it?
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to Other Commands
+
+```
+Development Flow:
+  Learn something → {{CMD_REF:update-spec}} → Knowledge captured
+       ↑                                  ↓
+  {{CMD_REF:break-loop}} ←──────────────────── Future sessions benefit
+  (deep bug analysis)
+```
+
+- `{{CMD_REF:break-loop}}` - Analyzes bugs deeply, often reveals spec updates needed
+- `{{CMD_REF:update-spec}}` - Actually makes the updates
+- `{{CMD_REF:finish-work}}` - Reminds you to check if specs need updates
+
+---
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+> **Code-specs are living documents. Every debugging session, every "aha moment" is an opportunity to make the implementation contract clearer.**
+
+The goal is **institutional memory**:
+- What one person learns, everyone benefits from
+- What AI learns in one session, persists to future sessions
+- Mistakes become documented guardrails