woozlit 2.3.0 → 2.3.2

package/src/skill/compose/.bundle/subagent/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -1,112 +0,0 @@
-# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
-
-Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.
-
-**Purpose:** Verify the implementation matches the spec it claims to cover — nothing
-missing, nothing misinterpreted, nothing extra — and return a machine-checkable
-verdict the controller can gate on.
-
-This reviewer runs in **two phases**. Dispatch phase 1 first. Dispatch phase 2 only
-if phase 1 flags anything (if phase 1 is all-pass there is nothing to downgrade, so
-skip phase 2).
-
-## Phase 1 — independent judgment (no implementer report)
-
-Dispatch with the spec section text and the diff ONLY. Do NOT include the
-implementer's report — its claims would anchor the reviewer toward confirming what
-was reported and away from finding what was silently omitted.
-
-Dispatch a spec-compliance reviewer as a `general` subagent via the `actor` tool,
-following the syntax in that tool's own description. Use a title like "Spec
-review Task N — phase 1" and give it this prompt:
-
-~~~
-You are verifying whether an implementation matches its specification. Judge
-INDEPENDENTLY. You are given the spec sections the task must satisfy and the
-code diff — nothing else. There is deliberately no implementer report; do not
-ask for one.
-
-## Spec sections this task covers
-
-[Controller pastes verbatim text of the covered [Sn] spec sections]
-
-## Git range to review
-
-**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
-**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
-
-```bash
-git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-```
-
-## Your job
-
-1. Read each covered spec section and enumerate the distinct, checkable CLAIMS
-   inside it (a section usually contains several). A claim is one verifiable
-   statement about required behavior.
-2. For each claim, decide if it is in scope for THIS task. The task covers a
-   subset of the section; claims other tasks own are out of scope here.
-3. For each in-scope claim, verify it against the diff. Remember: the diff shows
-   what changed, not what is missing. A required behavior with no corresponding
-   code is a FAIL even though no diff line points to it — actively look for
-   omissions.
-4. Evidence is mandatory. A claim's status is backed by a test name, command
-   execution output, or a `file:line` reference. A status asserted without such
-   evidence is `fail`. Prose like "looks implemented" is NOT evidence.
-5. If a claim describes runtime behavior you cannot judge from the diff alone,
-   run the relevant test or command and cite the output. If you cannot verify it,
-   mark it `unverifiable` — never a silent pass.
-
-## Output format (return EXACTLY this structure)
-
-**Status**: pass | fail
-(pass only if every in-scope claim is `pass` with evidence)
-
-**Claims**:
-- [Sn · "<short claim text>"] in-scope · status: pass
-  evidence: <test name | command output | file:line>
-- [Sn · "<short claim text>"] in-scope · status: fail
-  evidence: <what's missing or wrong, with file:line if applicable>
-- [Sn · "<short claim text>"] out-of-scope-for-this-task
-- [Sn · "<short claim text>"] in-scope · status: unverifiable
-  evidence: <why it can't be verified from available material>
-
-**Extra work not traced to any covered claim**:
-- <file:line — what was built that no covered claim required, or "(none)">
-~~~
-
-## Phase 2 — rationale reconciliation (sees the report)
-
-Only if phase 1 flagged any `fail`, `unverifiable`, or extra work. Give the SAME
-reviewer its phase-1 verdict plus the implementer's report. The report may explain a
-flagged diff ("that odd line is a deliberate decision described in my report").
-
-Dispatch the same reviewer again as a `general` subagent via the `actor` tool,
-with a title like "Spec review Task N — phase 2", and this prompt:
-
-~~~
-Here is your phase-1 verdict and the implementer's report. Use the report ONLY
-to explain items you flagged. You may downgrade a flagged item to a phase-2 note
-if the report justifies it. You CANNOT add new passes and CANNOT upgrade a
-`fail` to `pass` — a report claim is not evidence. If a fail genuinely needs
-re-verification with fresh evidence (test/exec/file:line), that belongs in a new
-phase-1 re-review after the implementer acts, not here.
-
-## Your phase-1 verdict
-[paste phase-1 output]
-
-## Implementer report
-[paste implementer's report]
-
-## Output format
-**Status**: pass | fail  (unchanged unless a downgrade clears the last failure)
-**Claims**: [same structure as phase 1, with any downgraded items annotated]
-**Phase-2 notes**:
-- [Sn · "<claim>"] downgraded: <report's justification> — was: <prior status>
-~~~
-
-**Placeholders:** `{BASE_SHA}`, `{HEAD_SHA}` — commit range for this task.
-
-**Reviewer returns:** structured Status + per-claim verdicts. The controller gates on
-this (see `compose:subagent`): the task is not complete while any in-scope claim is
-`fail` or `unverifiable`.

package/src/skill/compose/.bundle/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,372 +0,0 @@
----
-name: compose:tdd
-hidden: true
-description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
----
-
-# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
-
-## Overview
-
-Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
-
-**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
-
-**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
-
-## When to Use
-
-**Always:**
-- New features
-- Bug fixes
-- Refactoring
-- Behavior changes
-
-**Exceptions (raise them through `compose:ask`; if no user is available, use your best judgment and proceed):**
-- Throwaway prototypes
-- Generated code
-- Configuration files
-
-Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
-```
-
-Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
-
-**No exceptions:**
-- Don't keep it as "reference"
-- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
-- Don't look at it
-- Delete means delete
-
-Implement fresh from tests. Period.
-
-## Red-Green-Refactor
-
-```dot
-digraph tdd_cycle {
-    rankdir=LR;
-    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
-    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
-    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
-    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
-    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
-    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
-
-    red -> verify_red;
-    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
-    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
-    green -> verify_green;
-    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
-    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
-    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
-    verify_green -> next;
-    next -> red;
-}
-```
-
-### RED - Write Failing Test
-
-Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
-
-<Good>
-```typescript
-test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
-  let attempts = 0;
-  const operation = () => {
-    attempts++;
-    if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
-    return 'success';
-  };
-
-  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
-
-  expect(result).toBe('success');
-  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
-});
-```
-Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
-</Good>
-
-<Bad>
-```typescript
-test('retry works', async () => {
-  const mock = jest.fn()
-    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
-    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
-    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
-  await retryOperation(mock);
-  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
-});
-```
-Vague name, tests mock not code
-</Bad>
-
-**Requirements:**
-- One behavior
-- Clear name
-- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
-
-### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
-
-**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
-
-```bash
-npm test path/to/test.test.ts
-```
-
-Confirm:
-- Test fails (not errors)
-- Failure message is expected
-- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
-
-**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
-
-**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
-
-### GREEN - Minimal Code
-
-Write simplest code to pass the test.
-
-<Good>
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
-  for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
-    try {
-      return await fn();
-    } catch (e) {
-      if (i === 2) throw e;
-    }
-  }
-  throw new Error('unreachable');
-}
-```
-Just enough to pass
-</Good>
-
-<Bad>
-```typescript
-async function retryOperation<T>(
-  fn: () => Promise<T>,
-  options?: {
-    maxRetries?: number;
-    backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
-    onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
-  }
-): Promise<T> {
-  // YAGNI
-}
-```
-Over-engineered
-</Bad>
-
-Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
-
-### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
-
-**MANDATORY.**
-
-```bash
-npm test path/to/test.test.ts
-```
-
-Confirm:
-- Test passes
-- Other tests still pass
-- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
-
-**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
-
-**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
-
-### REFACTOR - Clean Up
-
-After green only:
-- Remove duplication
-- Improve names
-- Extract helpers
-
-Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
-
-### Repeat
-
-Next failing test for next feature.
-
-## Good Tests
-
-| Quality | Good | Bad |
-|---------|------|-----|
-| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
-| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
-| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
-
-## Why Order Matters
-
-**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
-
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
-
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
-
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
-
-Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
-- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
-- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
-
-The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
-
-**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
-
-TDD IS pragmatic:
-- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
-- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
-- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
-- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
-
-"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
-
-No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
-
-Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
-
-30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
-| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
-| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
-| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
-| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
-| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
-| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
-| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
-
-## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
-
-- Code before test
-- Test after implementation
-- Test passes immediately
-- Can't explain why test failed
-- Tests added "later"
-- Rationalizing "just this once"
-- "I already manually tested it"
-- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
-- "It's about spirit not ritual"
-- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
-- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
-- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
-- "This is different because..."
-
-**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
-
-## Example: Bug Fix
-
-**Bug:** Empty email accepted
-
-**RED**
-```typescript
-test('rejects empty email', async () => {
-  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
-  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
-});
-```
-
-**Verify RED**
-```bash
-$ npm test
-FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
-```
-
-**GREEN**
-```typescript
-function submitForm(data: FormData) {
-  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
-    return { error: 'Email required' };
-  }
-  // ...
-}
-```
-
-**Verify GREEN**
-```bash
-$ npm test
-PASS
-```
-
-**REFACTOR**
-Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
-
-## Verification Checklist
-
-Before marking work complete:
-
-- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
-- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
-- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
-- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
-- [ ] All tests pass
-- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
-- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
-- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
-
-Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
-
-## When Stuck
-
-| Problem | Solution |
-|---------|----------|
-| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask through `compose:ask`; if no user is available, use the simplest testable approach. |
-| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
-| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
-| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
-
-## Debugging Integration
-
-Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
-
-Never fix bugs without a test.
-
-## Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
-- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
-- Adding test-only methods to production classes
-- Mocking without understanding dependencies
-
-## Final Rule
-
-```
-Production code → test exists and failed first
-Otherwise → not TDD
-```
-
-No exceptions without your human partner's permission.