wize-dev-kit 0.14.0 → 0.16.0

package/src/tea-skills/wize-tea-review/workflow.md

@@ -1,145 +1,35 @@
 ---
-
 code: wize-tea-review
-description: "Use quando uma story terminar implementação e precisar de revisão estruturada de AC fulfillment, disciplina de teste e cobertura de risco."
 name: TEA Story Review
-phase: 4-implementation
 gate: review
 owner: wize-agent-test-architect   # Hawkeye
 when: story-end
-status: ready
+status: stub
 ---
 
 # TEA — Story Review
 
-**Goal.** A structured review of one story before its gate decision. Distinct from Shuri's `wize-code-review` (which audits code health). This one audits **AC fulfillment, test discipline, and risk-spot coverage**.
-
-Hawkeye drives. Runs at story end, right before `tea-gate`.
+**Goal.** Structured story review (separate from Shuri's `wize-code-review`).
 
 ## Inputs
-
-- Story file (the AC list, out-of-scope, notes).
-- `tea-design.md` + `tea-trace.md`.
-- Test run results (PR CI).
-- Code diff (the PR).
+- Story file (ACs)
+- Test results
+- Trace doc
 
 ## Output
-
 - `.wize/implementation/tea/{epic}/{story}/review.md`
 
-## Steps
-
-### 1. AC check (per AC)
-
-For each AC, observe the actual behavior on a staging or local build and decide: `met` / `partial` / `not-met`. Use the recorded video/screenshot when CI captured one (Playwright `screenshot: only-on-failure` or always for review tag).
-
-### 2. Test discipline
-
-Walk:
-- Are `tea-design.md`'s declared tests present in code?
-- Is every assertion meaningful (not just `expect(true).toBe(true)`)?
-- Are selectors stable (role/label/testid) rather than brittle (CSS classes)?
-- Are mocks at the network boundary (MSW) rather than in the unit under test?
-- Are there `test.skip` or `test.only` left in?
-
-### 3. Risk-spot coverage
-
-If the story touches any `R-x` from the risk profile, walk the mitigation contract and confirm it's met.
-
-### 4. Story scope discipline
-
-Did the story stay within its declared scope? Any out-of-scope item that crept in is flagged in the review (and either moved to a new story or backed out).
-
-### 5. Knowledge update check
-
-Did this story touch any of the 5 `document-project` axes (architecture / conventions / risk-spots / dependencies / overview)? If yes, walk the PR diff and confirm the corresponding `.wize/knowledge/document-project/*.md` got 1–3 new lines this commit.
-
-Decision:
-- **Touched + updated** → record as PASS, no finding.
-- **Touched + NOT updated** → record finding `KN-NN` (severity `medium`); recommendation: `gate CONCERNS` (advisory mode) or `gate FAIL` (enforcing).
-- **Not touched** → write `knowledge: n/a` in the body, move on.
-
-This is what keeps the brownfield baseline alive instead of stale. Without it, `document-project` is honest in week 1 and obsolete in week 24.
-
-### 6. Findings
-
-For each issue, write: severity (`low / medium / high`), what, why it matters, what to do.
-
-### 7. Recommend gate outcome
-
-Review doesn't *make* the gate decision (that's `tea-gate`); it recommends. Possible recommendations:
-- `gate PASS`
-- `gate CONCERNS` with N findings
-- `gate FAIL` (only if a non-negotiable AC is `not-met`)
-- `gate WAIVED` (only with documented reason + senior signoff)
-
-## YAML frontmatter (canonical)
-
+## YAML frontmatter
 ```yaml
 ---
 gate: review
-story_id: E01-S03
-status: PASS
+story_id: …
+status: PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL
 ac_check:
-  - id: AC-02-1
-    met: true
-    evidence: "e2e/onboarding/invite.spec.ts::happy path passed on PR-#412; recording in CI artifact #412-1"
-  - id: AC-02-2
-    met: true
-    evidence: "InviteForm.spec.tsx::error region announces"
-knowledge_axes_touched: [conventions, risk-spots]
-knowledge_axes_updated: [conventions, risk-spots]   # leave empty array if axes touched but no update happened
-findings:
-  - id: REV-01
-    severity: low
-    summary: "Empty-state copy slightly differs from Mantis' spec."
-    recommendation: "Update `<EmptyTeamPanel>` heading to 'Invite your first teammate'."
-    owner: shuri
-    blocking: false
-risk_links: [R-1]
-recommendation: gate-PASS
-created_at: 2026-06-11T20:00:00Z
+  - id: AC-1
+    met: true|partial|false
+    evidence: …
+findings: [...]
+recommendations: [...]
 ---
 ```
-
-## Body of `review.md`
-
-```markdown
-## Per-AC
-
-### AC-02-1 — met
-Evidence: E2E `e2e/onboarding/invite.spec.ts::happy path` passed locally + CI run #412. Banner appears 720ms after click (well within 1s NFR).
-
-### AC-02-2 — met
-Evidence: Unit + component test both pass. Manually walked screen-reader output — VoiceOver announces "Email — error — Enter a valid email." correctly.
-
-## Test discipline
-- All declared tests present.
-- `data-testid` discipline solid (invite-form, invite-email, invite-cta, invite-sent-banner).
-- No `test.skip` / `.only`.
-- One snapshot test — small enough to be useful; not a tree snapshot.
-
-## Risk coverage
-- R-1 (mailer): integration test covers the right path; happy path E2E confirms end-to-end. PASS.
-
-## Scope discipline
-- Two minor copy tweaks crept in (out-of-spec; logged as REV-01).
-
-## Findings
-- REV-01 (low): empty-state copy.
-
-## Recommendation
-Recommend `gate PASS` with one low-severity finding to fix in a follow-up.
-```
-
-## Anti-patterns Hawkeye rejects
-
-- **Review without walking the code.** Reading the test names isn't review.
-- **AC marked "met" without observed evidence.** Tests passing + screenshot/recording, please.
-- **Findings without owners.** Same as everywhere else in the kit.
-- **Recommending PASS when an AC is `partial`.** No.
-- **Recommending PASS when a non-negotiable NFR slipped.** That's a gate FAIL.
-
-## Hand-off
-
-> Review for E01-S03 at `.wize/implementation/tea/E01-S03/review.md`. All ACs `met`, one low-severity copy finding. Recommending `gate PASS`. Final at `wize-tea-gate`.

package/src/tea-skills/wize-tea-risk/workflow.md

@@ -1,142 +1,39 @@
 ---
-
 code: wize-tea-risk
-description: "Use quando a arquitetura for assinada e precisar construir a matriz probabilidade × impacto que prioriza todo o trabalho de TEA."
 name: TEA Risk Profile
-phase: 4-implementation
 gate: risk
 owner: wize-agent-test-architect   # Hawkeye
 when: once-after-architecture
-status: ready
+status: stub
 ---
 
 # TEA — Risk Profile
 
-**Goal.** Build the **probability × impact** matrix that prioritizes the rest of TEA's work. Areas in `HIGH` get deep test design; areas in `LOW` get smoke. Without a risk profile, every story is tested the same — wasteful, and unsafe.
-
-Hawkeye drives. Tony co-signs. Runs **once**, right after architecture is signed off; revisit only on significant scope or architecture changes.
+**Goal.** Build the probability × impact matrix that prioritizes the rest of TEA's work.
 
 ## Inputs
-
 - `.wize/solutioning/architecture.md`
 - `.wize/solutioning/epics/`
-- `.wize/planning/nfr-principles.md`
-- `.wize/knowledge/document-project/risk-spots.md` (brownfield)
-- `.wize/knowledge/document-project/index.md` (documentation gap markers)
 
 ## Output
-
 - `.wize/implementation/tea/risk-profile.md`
 
-## Steps
-
-### 1. List candidate hot spots
-
-For every architectural component + every epic, ask: *"If this misbehaves, what hurts?"*. Write candidates without filtering.
-
-### 2. Score each
-
-| Axis | Levels |
-|---|---|
-| Probability | `low` (would be a surprise), `medium` (could happen), `high` (likely without explicit work) |
-| Impact | `low` (cosmetic / opex), `medium` (user friction / revenue dent), `high` (data loss / outage / regulatory) |
-
-Composite score:
-- `low × low` = LOW
-- `low × medium`, `medium × low`, `medium × medium` = MEDIUM
-- anything touching `high` = HIGH
-
-### 3. For each finding, write the mitigation contract
-
-Per row:
-- **What test makes us confident?** Unit / integration / E2E / NFR / manual.
-- **Who owns the mitigation?** Shuri / Tony / external service.
-- **When is it verified?** Story-level / epic-level / pre-launch.
-
-### 4. Hand off
-
-Hawkeye uses this in every `tea-design.md`. Tony respects it when picking ADR options.
-
 ## YAML frontmatter (canonical)
-
 ```yaml
 ---
 gate: risk
 status: PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL | WAIVED
 score: 0-100
-created_at: 2026-06-11T12:00:00Z
+created_at: ISO-8601
 findings:
   - id: R-1
-    area: "Outbox / mailer"
-    probability: high
-    impact: medium
-    rationale: "Sign-up flow depends on email delivery; first impression failure is high-cost."
-    mitigation: "Integration test against Resend sandbox; outbox retry with backoff; on-call alert on delivery failure rate > 5%."
-    owner: shuri + tony
-    verified_when: story E01-S04 + NFR per epic
-  - id: R-2
-    area: "Database migrations under load"
-    probability: medium
-    impact: high
-    rationale: "Future migrations must be rolled out without lock contention."
-    mitigation: "Online schema changes; canary on staging with synthetic load; ADR-006 process."
-    owner: tony
-    verified_when: pre-launch
-  - id: R-3
-    area: "Auth: token refresh during long-running tabs"
-    probability: medium
-    impact: medium
-    rationale: "Cookie refresh race in RSC + edge can sign user out unexpectedly."
-    mitigation: "E2E covering > 1h tab; refresh strategy ADR-008; on-call alert on `auth_session_expired_unexpected`."
-    owner: shuri
-    verified_when: story E04-S02 + post-launch monitoring
+    area: …
+    probability: low | medium | high
+    impact: low | medium | high
+    rationale: …
+    mitigation: …
 ---
 ```
 
-## Body of `risk-profile.md`
-
-The narrative explains the matrix; the YAML is the structured truth. Hawkeye writes 1–2 lines per finding explaining the *why*.
-
-```markdown
-## Matrix
-
-| | Impact LOW | Impact MEDIUM | Impact HIGH |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| **Prob HIGH** | R-7 | R-1 | R-2 |
-| **Prob MEDIUM** | R-4 | R-3 | R-5 |
-| **Prob LOW** | — | R-6 | — |
-
-## Top-3 (drive test design)
-
-1. **R-2** — Database migrations under load. Pre-launch verification mandatory.
-2. **R-1** — Outbox/mailer. Story E01-S04 covers; epic NFR re-verifies.
-3. **R-5** — Payment idempotency. Story E03-S02 covers.
-
-## What this means for `tea-design.md`
-
-- E01-S04 (mailer): 1 unit (retry policy), 1 integration (Resend sandbox), 1 E2E (sign-up arrives within 5min).
-- E03-S02 (payments): 2 integration (Stripe idempotency keys), 1 E2E (double-click guard).
-- Other stories follow the default 70/20/10 split.
-```
-
-## Documentation gap risk category
-
-In brownfield repos, missing or stale documentation is an operational risk: new contributors make unsafe assumptions, AI agents hallucinate context, and reviews miss implicit contracts. Hawkeye treats it as a first-class risk area.
-
-| Symptom | Severity | Rationale | Mitigation |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| `index.md` contains `_(To be generated)_` markers | medium | Conditional docs were skipped; the baseline is incomplete. | Schedule `wize-document-project initial_scan` for the next cooldown. |
-| Baseline files older than 60 days | medium | Docs may no longer reflect the codebase. | Run `wize-refresh-knowledge` at sprint end. |
-| No baseline exists in a brownfield repo | high | Team is flying blind; architecture and conventions are tribal knowledge. | Run `wize-dev-kit document-project quick` immediately. |
-
-## Anti-patterns Hawkeye rejects
-
-- **Findings without mitigation.** A finding without a contract is a wish.
-- **Mitigation owned by "the team."** Name a persona/human.
-- **HIGH impact, MEDIUM probability, no NFR re-check.** Wire it into epic NFR gate.
-- **Cosmetic risks scored HIGH.** Calibration. Reserve HIGH for data, outage, regulatory.
-- **Risk profile rewritten per sprint.** Run once; revise on real architecture changes.
-
-## Hand-off
-
-> Risk profile at `.wize/implementation/tea/risk-profile.md`. Top-3 drive deep `tea-design.md` for E01-S04, E03-S02, plus pre-launch migration drill. Default 70/20/10 split for the rest.
+## Body
+Narrative summary; the structured data is the YAML.

package/src/tea-skills/wize-tea-trace/workflow.md

@@ -1,110 +1,36 @@
 ---
-
 code: wize-tea-trace
-description: "Use quando uma story estiver em implementação e precisar mapear cada AC para testes concretos no repositório."
 name: TEA Traceability
-phase: 4-implementation
 gate: trace
 owner: wize-agent-test-architect   # Hawkeye
 when: during-or-after-implementation
-status: ready
+status: stub
 ---
 
 # TEA — Traceability
 
-**Goal.** Map every Acceptance Criterion to **one or more concrete tests in the repo**. Reports honest coverage: `covered`, `partial`, `missing`. A story with `missing` rows cannot pass gate.
-
-Hawkeye drives. Runs while Shuri implements (or right after PR open).
+**Goal.** Map every Acceptance Criterion to one or more concrete tests in the repo.
 
 ## Inputs
-
-- Story file (the AC list).
-- `tea-design.md` (the test contract).
-- Repo (the actual test files).
+- Story file (ACs)
+- Test files produced by Shuri
 
 ## Output
-
 - `.wize/implementation/tea/{epic}/{story}/trace.md`
 
-## Steps
-
-### 1. Walk every AC
-
-For each AC ID:
-- Find the test(s) that exercise it.
-- Reference the file + test name precisely.
-- Decide status: `covered` (every assertion of the AC has a test) / `partial` (some assertions only) / `missing` (no test).
-
-### 2. Compute coverage score
-
-- `covered_count / total_acs`.
-- Reported but doesn't drive gate alone; the **per-AC status** drives gate.
-
-### 3. Flag holes
-
-For every `partial` / `missing`, write what's needed in one line. Hawkeye proposes the test; Shuri writes it.
-
-### 4. Hand off
-
-If everything is `covered`, status `PASS`. Otherwise `CONCERNS` (advisory) or `FAIL` (enforcing) until holes are closed.
-
-## YAML frontmatter (canonical)
-
+## YAML frontmatter
 ```yaml
 ---
 gate: trace
-story_id: E01-S03
-status: PASS
+story_id: …
+status: PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL
 coverage:
-  - ac_id: AC-02-1
-    status: covered
-    tests:
-      - "src/onboarding/invite/__tests__/validateInviteEmail.spec.ts::valid email"
-      - "src/onboarding/invite/__tests__/inviteTeammate.spec.ts::calls mailer with right args"
-      - "e2e/onboarding/invite.spec.ts::happy path on Playwright @chromium"
-  - ac_id: AC-02-2
-    status: covered
+  - ac_id: AC-1
     tests:
-      - "src/onboarding/invite/__tests__/validateInviteEmail.spec.ts::invalid email rules"
-      - "src/onboarding/invite/__tests__/InviteForm.spec.tsx::error region announces"
-created_at: 2026-06-11T15:30:00Z
+      - path/to/test.spec.ts::case-name
+    status: covered | partial | missing
 ---
 ```
 
-## Body of `trace.md`
-
-```markdown
-## Per-AC
-
-### AC-02-1 — covered
-Tests:
-- `validateInviteEmail.spec.ts::valid email`
-- `inviteTeammate.spec.ts::calls mailer with right args`
-- `e2e/onboarding/invite.spec.ts::happy path`
-
-### AC-02-2 — covered
-Tests:
-- `validateInviteEmail.spec.ts::invalid email rules`
-- `InviteForm.spec.tsx::error region announces`
-
-## Edges (from `design.md`)
-
-- E1 (empty) — covered (validateInviteEmail.spec.ts::empty).
-- E3 (idempotency) — **partial**. Integration test exists but doesn't assert second insert is no-op. Propose: assert `db.invites.count({ email, team_id })` = 1 after two calls.
-- E4 (offline) — **missing**. Propose: Playwright `context.setOffline(true)` before click; assert offline banner.
-
-## Action items
-- Shuri: add the missing offline E2E (or split into next story; flag in `review.md` then).
-- Hawkeye: re-run trace once PR has the new tests.
-```
-
-## Anti-patterns Hawkeye rejects
-
-- **Trace by file count, not per-AC.** "We have 24 tests" tells you nothing. Per AC, please.
-- **Counting passing CI as trace.** CI passes when a test exists; trace cares whether the test exercises the AC.
-- **`partial` left unflagged.** Either close or list as a known-open with story link.
-- **Re-naming tests after trace.** The trace breaks; Shuri renames in agreement with Hawkeye or doesn't rename.
-
-## Hand-off
-
-> Trace for E01-S03 at `.wize/implementation/tea/E01-S03/trace.md`. All ACs `covered`. Two edges still open (E3, E4); proposing follow-up. Ready for `tea-review`.
+## Body
+For any `missing` or `partial`, propose what to write.

package/src/web-overlay/wize-web-deploy/workflow.md

@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
 ---
-
 code: wize-web-deploy
-description: "Use quando o projeto web estiver pronto para deploy e precisar do playbook de publicação."
 name: Web Deploy Playbook
 overlay: web
 owner: wize-agent-architect   # Tony

package/src/web-overlay/wize-web-scaffold/workflow.md

@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
 ---
-
 code: wize-web-scaffold
-description: "Use quando precisar criar o scaffold inicial de um projeto web com a stack aprovada pelo Fury."
 name: Web Scaffold
 overlay: web
 owner: wize-agent-architect   # Tony executes; Fury approves stack family

package/src/web-overlay/wize-web-seo-audit/workflow.md

@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
 ---
-
 code: wize-web-seo-audit
-description: "Use quando o projeto web estiver no ar e precisar de auditoria de SEO."
 name: Web SEO Audit
 overlay: web
 owner: wize-agent-pm   # Maria Hill commissions; Mantis + Tony execute

package/tools/check-eli5-all-adapters.js

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+// Verifica que o wize-eli5 é renderizado por TODOS os 10 adapters de harness.
+'use strict';
+const fs = require('node:fs');
+const path = require('node:path');
+const os = require('node:os');
+
+const KIT = path.resolve(__dirname, '..');
+const EXPECT = [
+  { code: 'claude-code', file: '.claude/skills/wize-eli5/SKILL.md' },
+  { code: 'antigravity', file: '.agent/skills/wize-eli5/SKILL.md' },
+  { code: 'codex',       file: '.agents/skills/wize-eli5/SKILL.md' },
+  { code: 'kimi-code',   file: '.kimi/skills/wize-eli5/SKILL.md' },
+  { code: 'hermes',      file: '.hermes/skills/wize-eli5/SKILL.md' },
+  { code: 'cursor',      file: '.cursor/rules/wize-eli5.mdc' },
+  { code: 'windsurf',    file: '.windsurf/rules/wize-eli5.md' },
+  { code: 'continue',   file: '.continue/prompts/wize-eli5.prompt' },
+  { code: 'opencode',    file: '.opencode/commands/wize-eli5.md' },
+  { code: 'generic',     file: '.wize/agents/wize-eli5.md' },
+];
+
+let ok = 0, fail = 0;
+for (const a of EXPECT) {
+  const root = fs.mkdtempSync(path.join(os.tmpdir(), `wize-eli5-${a.code}-`));
+  try {
+    const mod = require(path.join(KIT, 'adapters', a.code, 'render.js'));
+    mod.render(KIT, root, { profiles: ['core'] });
+    const f = path.join(root, a.file);
+    if (fs.existsSync(f)) {
+      const content = fs.readFileSync(f, 'utf-8');
+      if (/ELI5/.test(content) && /Explain Like I Am 5/.test(content)) {
+        console.log(`  ✓ ${a.code.padEnd(11)} -> ${a.file}`);
+        ok++;
+      } else {
+        console.log(`  ✖ ${a.code}: arquivo existe mas sem conteúdo wize-eli5`);
+        fail++;
+      }
+    } else {
+      console.log(`  ✖ ${a.code}: ${a.file} NÃO foi gerado`);
+      fail++;
+    }
+  } catch (e) {
+    console.log(`  ✖ ${a.code}: erro ao renderizar — ${e.message}`);
+    fail++;
+  } finally {
+    fs.rmSync(root, { recursive: true, force: true });
+  }
+}
+console.log(`\n${ok}/10 harnesses com wize-eli5.`);
+process.exit(fail ? 1 : 0);

package/tools/installer/onboarding.js

@@ -1,25 +1,31 @@
 /*
  * Onboarding handoff — Wizer-driven triage after install.
  *
- * Returns a clean, minimal message (≤3 lines) that always ends with "→ /wize".
- * The message adapts to brownfield detection and active profiles without
- * turning into a wall of text.
+ * Stub: in v0.1 this just prints the first action Wizer would take.
+ * In a real run this would be a workflow executed by the active IDE adapter.
  */
 'use strict';
 
 function compose(detection, profiles) {
-  const lines = [];
-  const profileCodes = new Set(profiles.map(p => p.code));
-
-  if (detection && detection.brownfield) {
-    lines.push('Brownfield detected — baseline ready.');
-  }
-
-  if (profileCodes.has('security-overlay')) {
-    lines.push('Security pentest available (/wize-sec-recon).');
+  const lines = [
+    '',
+    '╭─ Wizer ─────────────────────────────────────╮',
+    '│ Welcome back. What are we working on?       │',
+    '╰─────────────────────────────────────────────╯'
+  ];
+  if (detection.brownfield) {
+    lines.push('');
+    lines.push('I see this repo already has code. I can ask Pepper and Peggy to baseline it before we plan.');
+    lines.push('  → /wize-document-project');
   }
-
-  lines.push('→ /wize');
+  lines.push('');
+  lines.push('When ready, name the next step:');
+  lines.push('  → /wize-product-brief          (Pepper)');
+  lines.push('  → /wize-create-prd             (Maria Hill, if brief exists)');
+  lines.push('  → /wize-create-architecture    (Tony, if PRD exists)');
+  lines.push('  → /wize-quick-dev              (Shuri, for small fixes)');
+  if (profiles.find(p => p.code === 'web-overlay')) lines.push('  → /wize-web-scaffold           (overlay)');
+  if (profiles.find(p => p.code === 'app-overlay')) lines.push('  → /wize-app-scaffold           (overlay)');
   return lines.join('\n');
 }