tribunal-kit 3.0.0 → 3.1.0

package/.agent/workflows/audit.md

@@ -1,138 +1,127 @@
----
-description: Full project audit combining security scan, lint, schema validation, test coverage, dependency analysis, and bundle analysis. Runs all scripts in priority order. Human review required before applying any fixes.
----
-
-# /audit — Complete Project Health Assessment
-
-$ARGUMENTS
-
----
-
-## When to Use /audit
-
-| Use `/audit` when... | Use something else when... |
-|:---|:---|
-| Before a major release or launch | Single file review → `/review` |
-| After a security incident | Just lint errors → `/fix` |
-| Onboarding to a new codebase | Performance only → `/performance-benchmarker` |
-| Weekly/monthly health check | Testing only → `/test` |
-| Before major dependency updates | |
-
----
-
-## Execution Order (Fixed — Do Not Reorder)
-
-Security failures early in the pipeline halt subsequent steps. Lint/test failures continue with flags.
-
-```
-Priority 1 — Security (HALT if critical finding)
-  python .agent/scripts/security_scan.py .
-
-Priority 2 — Dependencies (HALT if exploitable CVE found)
-  python .agent/scripts/dependency_analyzer.py . --audit
-
-Priority 3 — Type Checking (CONTINUE but flag)
-  npx tsc --noEmit
-
-Priority 4 — Lint (CONTINUE but flag as deployment blocker)
-  python .agent/scripts/lint_runner.py .
-
-Priority 5 — Schema Validation (CONTINUE but flag)
-  python .agent/scripts/schema_validator.py .
-
-Priority 6 — Tests (CONTINUE but mark incomplete)
-  python .agent/scripts/test_runner.py . --coverage
-
-Priority 7 — Bundle Analysis (INFORM only)
-  python .agent/scripts/bundle_analyzer.py . --build
-```
-
-### Cascade Failure Rules
-
-| Check | Failure Behavior |
-|:---|:---|
-| Security scan (critical) | **HALT** — all subsequent steps cancelled |
-| Dependency audit (exploitable CVE) | **HALT** — fix before proceeding |
-| Lint + type errors | **CONTINUE** — flag as deployment blocker |
-| Tests failing | **CONTINUE** — mark task as incomplete |
-| Bundle analysis (large) | **INFORM** — no blocking |
-
----
-
-## Script Retry Protocol
-
-```
-Script exits 0:     Success — continue pipeline
-Script exits 1:     Failure — report and decide: retry or skip?
-Script not found:   Skip with warning — do not block pipeline
-Script times out:   Kill after 5 min — report timeout — continue
-Script crashes:     Catch exception — report stack trace — continue
-```
-
-**Hard limit: 3 retries per script.** After 3 failures, report to human and continue with remaining scripts.
-
----
-
-## Audit Report Format
-
-```
-━━━ Audit Report: [Project Name] ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-Score: [N/7 checks passed]
-
-1. Security Scan:         ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (CRITICAL — HALTED) | ⚠️ WARNINGS
-2. Dependency Audit:      ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (CVE-XXXX-XXXX found) | ⚠️ WARNINGS
-3. TypeScript:            ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (N errors)
-4. Lint:                  ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (N errors, M warnings)
-5. Schema Validation:     ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED | N/A
-6. Test Coverage:         ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (N% — below 80% threshold)
-7. Bundle Size:           ✅ GOOD (310kb) | ⚠️ LARGE (>500kb) | ❌ CRITICAL (>1mb)
-
-━━━ Critical Issues (Fix Before Deploy) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-- [CRITICAL] SQL injection in src/routes/users.ts:47
-- [HIGH] JWT secret from hardcoded fallback in src/lib/auth.ts:12
-
-━━━ Important Issues (Fix Before Release) ━━━━━━━━━━
-- [MEDIUM] 4 TypeScript 'any' types in src/components/
-- [MEDIUM] Test coverage: 58% (target: 80%)
-
-━━━ Recommendations ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-- Update lodash 4.17.20 → 4.17.21 (Prototype pollution CVE)
-- Add @types/node to devDependencies (missing)
-- Bundle size: chart library causes +240kb — use dynamic import
-
-━━━ Suggested Next Steps ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-Critical items → /tribunal-backend to fix injection and JWT issues
-Test gaps → /test to add coverage for checkout and auth flows
-Bundle → /enhance to add dynamic import for chart component
-```
-
----
-
-## Human Review Gate
-
-After the audit report is produced:
-
-```
-Human Gate required before any fixes are applied.
-
-Approve a fix plan?
-Y = proceed with automated fixes where safe
-N = report only, no changes
-S = select specific items to fix
-```
-
-No files are modified without explicit approval.
-
----
-
-## Cross-Workflow Navigation
-
-| Audit finds... | Go to |
-|:---|:---|
-| Security vulnerabilities | `/tribunal-backend` or `/tribunal-full` |
-| TypeScript errors | `/fix` (auto-fixable) or `/generate` (logic errors) |
-| Test coverage gap | `/test` for specific area |
-| Bundle too large | `/tribunal-performance` |
-| DB schema issues | `/tribunal-database` |
-| Dependency vulnerabilities | `/fix` with `npm audit fix` |
+---
+description: Full project audit combining security scan, lint, schema validation, test coverage, dependency analysis, and bundle analysis. Runs all scripts in priority order. Human review required before applying any fixes.
+---
+
+# /audit — Complete Project Health Assessment
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+---
+
+## When to Use /audit
+
+|Use `/audit` when...|Use something else when...|
+|:---|:---|
+|Before a major release or launch|Single file review → `/review`|
+|After a security incident|Just lint errors → `/fix`|
+|Onboarding to a new codebase|Performance only → `/performance-benchmarker`|
+|Weekly/monthly health check|Testing only → `/test`|
+|Before major dependency updates||
+
+---
+
+## Execution Order (Fixed — Do Not Reorder)
+
+Security failures early in the pipeline halt subsequent steps. Lint/test failures continue with flags.
+
+```
+Priority 1 — Security (HALT if critical finding)
+  python .agent/scripts/security_scan.py .
+
+Priority 2 — Dependencies (HALT if exploitable CVE found)
+  python .agent/scripts/dependency_analyzer.py . --audit
+
+Priority 3 — Type Checking (CONTINUE but flag)
+  npx tsc --noEmit
+
+Priority 4 — Lint (CONTINUE but flag as deployment blocker)
+  python .agent/scripts/lint_runner.py .
+
+Priority 5 — Schema Validation (CONTINUE but flag)
+  python .agent/scripts/schema_validator.py .
+
+Priority 6 — Tests (CONTINUE but mark incomplete)
+  python .agent/scripts/test_runner.py . --coverage
+
+Priority 7 — Bundle Analysis (INFORM only)
+  python .agent/scripts/bundle_analyzer.py . --build
+```
+
+### Cascade Failure Rules
+
+|Check|Failure Behavior|
+|:---|:---|
+|Security scan (critical)|**HALT** — all subsequent steps cancelled|
+|Dependency audit (exploitable CVE)|**HALT** — fix before proceeding|
+|Lint + type errors|**CONTINUE** — flag as deployment blocker|
+|Tests failing|**CONTINUE** — mark task as incomplete|
+|Bundle analysis (large)|**INFORM** — no blocking|
+
+---
+
+## Script Retry Protocol
+
+```
+Script exits 0:     Success — continue pipeline
+Script exits 1:     Failure — report and decide: retry or skip?
+Script not found:   Skip with warning — do not block pipeline
+Script times out:   Kill after 5 min — report timeout — continue
+Script crashes:     Catch exception — report stack trace — continue
+```
+
+**Hard limit: 3 retries per script.** After 3 failures, report to human and continue with remaining scripts.
+
+---
+
+## Audit Report Format
+
+```
+━━━ Audit Report: [Project Name] ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+Score: [N/7 checks passed]
+
+1. Security Scan:         ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (CRITICAL — HALTED) | ⚠️ WARNINGS
+2. Dependency Audit:      ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (CVE-XXXX-XXXX found) | ⚠️ WARNINGS
+3. TypeScript:            ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (N errors)
+4. Lint:                  ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (N errors, M warnings)
+5. Schema Validation:     ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED | N/A
+6. Test Coverage:         ✅ PASSED | ❌ FAILED (N% — below 80% threshold)
+7. Bundle Size:           ✅ GOOD (310kb) | ⚠️ LARGE (>500kb) | ❌ CRITICAL (>1mb)
+
+━━━ Critical Issues (Fix Before Deploy) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+- [CRITICAL] SQL injection in src/routes/users.ts:47
+- [HIGH] JWT secret from hardcoded fallback in src/lib/auth.ts:12
+
+━━━ Important Issues (Fix Before Release) ━━━━━━━━━━
+- [MEDIUM] 4 TypeScript 'any' types in src/components/
+- [MEDIUM] Test coverage: 58% (target: 80%)
+
+━━━ Recommendations ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+- Update lodash 4.17.20 → 4.17.21 (Prototype pollution CVE)
+- Add @types/node to devDependencies (missing)
+- Bundle size: chart library causes +240kb — use dynamic import
+
+━━━ Suggested Next Steps ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+Critical items → /tribunal-backend to fix injection and JWT issues
+Test gaps → /test to add coverage for checkout and auth flows
+Bundle → /enhance to add dynamic import for chart component
+```
+
+---
+
+## Human Review Gate
+
+After the audit report is produced:
+
+```
+Human Gate required before any fixes are applied.
+
+Approve a fix plan?
+Y = proceed with automated fixes where safe
+N = report only, no changes
+S = select specific items to fix
+```
+
+No files are modified without explicit approval.
+
+---

package/.agent/workflows/brainstorm.md

@@ -1,110 +1,110 @@
----
-description: Structured brainstorming for projects and features. Uses Socratic questioning to explore multiple options before committing to an approach. No implementation during this phase — only exploration.
----
-
-# /brainstorm — Structured Idea Exploration
-
-$ARGUMENTS
-
----
-
-## When to Use /brainstorm
-
-| Use `/brainstorm` when... | Move to... |
-|:---|:---|
-| Multiple valid approaches exist | After decision → `/plan` |
-| You're unsure of the best architecture | After plan approval → `/generate` |
-| Exploring tradeoffs before committing | Confirmed approach → `/create` |
-| Looking for second opinions on design | |
-
----
-
-## Phase 1 — Question First
-
-Before generating ideas, ask 3 clarifying questions:
-
-```
-1. What constraint is non-negotiable? (timeline, tech stack, cost, performance)
-2. What has already been tried and ruled out?
-3. What does "success" look like for this decision?
-```
-
----
-
-## Phase 2 — Generate 3 Distinct Options
-
-Present minimum 3 meaningfully different approaches:
-
-```
-Option A: [Conservative approach]
-  Pros: [why this works]
-  Cons: [what it sacrifices]
-  Effort: [Low / Medium / High]
-  Best for: [when this is the right choice]
-
-Option B: [Balanced approach]
-  Pros: [why this works]
-  Cons: [what it sacrifices]
-  Effort: [Low / Medium / High]
-  Best for: [when this is the right choice]
-
-Option C: [Ambitious approach]
-  Pros: [why this works]
-  Cons: [what it sacrifices]
-  Effort: [Low / Medium / High]
-  Best for: [when this is the right choice]
-```
-
----
-
-## Phase 3 — Socratic Analysis
-
-After presenting options, probe with questions that reveal hidden tradeoffs:
-
-```
-□ What happens when this scales to 10x current load?
-□ What's the maintenance cost 12 months from now?
-□ Which option fails most gracefully under the worst case?
-□ Which option are you most likely to regret?
-□ What's the opportunity cost of each option?
-```
-
----
-
-## Phase 4 — Recommendation (Evidence-Based)
-
-After exploration, state a recommendation:
-
-```
-Recommended: Option [B]
-
-Reasoning:
-- [specific reason 1 tied to stated constraints]
-- [specific reason 2]
-- [specific tradeoff you're accepting and why]
-
-NOT recommended because [reason Option A/C is worse for this specific context]
-```
-
----
-
-## Brainstorm Guard
-
-```
-❌ Never present a single option as if it's the only choice
-❌ Never recommend without explaining WHY in terms of the stated constraints
-❌ Never skip the Socratic probing — it surfaces assumptions
-❌ Never proceed to implementation in /brainstorm mode — use /plan after
-```
-
----
-
-## Usage Examples
-
-```
-/brainstorm real-time collaboration: WebSockets vs Server-Sent Events vs CRDTs
-/brainstorm caching strategy: Redis vs in-memory vs CDN for our API responses
-/brainstorm auth: next-auth vs Clerk vs custom JWT for our SaaS app
-/brainstorm state management: Zustand vs Redux vs TanStack Query
-/brainstorm monolith vs microservices for our current team size
-```
+---
+description: Structured brainstorming for projects and features. Uses Socratic questioning to explore multiple options before committing to an approach. No implementation during this phase — only exploration.
+---
+
+# /brainstorm — Structured Idea Exploration
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+---
+
+## When to Use /brainstorm
+
+|Use `/brainstorm` when...|Move to...|
+|:---|:---|
+|Multiple valid approaches exist|After decision → `/plan`|
+|You're unsure of the best architecture|After plan approval → `/generate`|
+|Exploring tradeoffs before committing|Confirmed approach → `/create`|
+|Looking for second opinions on design||
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — Question First
+
+Before generating ideas, ask 3 clarifying questions:
+
+```
+1. What constraint is non-negotiable? (timeline, tech stack, cost, performance)
+2. What has already been tried and ruled out?
+3. What does "success" look like for this decision?
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2 — Generate 3 Distinct Options
+
+Present minimum 3 meaningfully different approaches:
+
+```
+Option A: [Conservative approach]
+  Pros: [why this works]
+  Cons: [what it sacrifices]
+  Effort: [Low / Medium / High]
+  Best for: [when this is the right choice]
+
+Option B: [Balanced approach]
+  Pros: [why this works]
+  Cons: [what it sacrifices]
+  Effort: [Low / Medium / High]
+  Best for: [when this is the right choice]
+
+Option C: [Ambitious approach]
+  Pros: [why this works]
+  Cons: [what it sacrifices]
+  Effort: [Low / Medium / High]
+  Best for: [when this is the right choice]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3 — Socratic Analysis
+
+After presenting options, probe with questions that reveal hidden tradeoffs:
+
+```
+□ What happens when this scales to 10x current load?
+□ What's the maintenance cost 12 months from now?
+□ Which option fails most gracefully under the worst case?
+□ Which option are you most likely to regret?
+□ What's the opportunity cost of each option?
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4 — Recommendation (Evidence-Based)
+
+After exploration, state a recommendation:
+
+```
+Recommended: Option [B]
+
+Reasoning:
+- [specific reason 1 tied to stated constraints]
+- [specific reason 2]
+- [specific tradeoff you're accepting and why]
+
+NOT recommended because [reason Option A/C is worse for this specific context]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Brainstorm Guard
+
+```
+❌ Never present a single option as if it's the only choice
+❌ Never recommend without explaining WHY in terms of the stated constraints
+❌ Never skip the Socratic probing — it surfaces assumptions
+❌ Never proceed to implementation in /brainstorm mode — use /plan after
+```
+
+---
+
+## Usage Examples
+
+```
+/brainstorm real-time collaboration: WebSockets vs Server-Sent Events vs CRDTs
+/brainstorm caching strategy: Redis vs in-memory vs CDN for our API responses
+/brainstorm auth: next-auth vs Clerk vs custom JWT for our SaaS app
+/brainstorm state management: Zustand vs Redux vs TanStack Query
+/brainstorm monolith vs microservices for our current team size
+```