moai-adk 0.15.0__py3-none-any.whl → 0.25.4__py3-none-any.whl

moai_adk/templates/.claude/skills/moai-alfred-proactive-suggestions/SKILL.md

@@ -1,508 +0,0 @@
----
-name: moai-alfred-proactive-suggestions
-version: 1.0.0
-created: 2025-11-02
-updated: 2025-11-02
-status: active
-description: Guide Alfred to provide non-intrusive proactive suggestions based on risk detection, optimization patterns, and learning opportunities
-keywords: ['proactive', 'suggestions', 'risk', 'optimization', 'learning', 'patterns', 'automation']
-allowed-tools:
-  - Read
-  - AskUserQuestion
----
-
-# Alfred Proactive Suggestions - Intelligent Pattern Recognition
-
-## Skill Metadata
-
-| Field | Value |
-| ----- | ----- |
-| **Skill Name** | moai-alfred-proactive-suggestions |
-| **Version** | 1.0.0 (2025-11-02) |
-| **Status** | Active |
-| **Tier** | Alfred |
-| **Purpose** | Provide timely, non-intrusive suggestions for risks, optimizations, and learning |
-
----
-
-## What It Does
-
-Alfred proactively identifies risks, optimization opportunities, and learning moments during workflow execution. Suggestions are contextual, actionable, and limited to prevent interruption.
-
-**Key capabilities**:
-- ✅ Risk detection (6 patterns): Database migrations, breaking changes, destructive operations
-- ✅ Optimization patterns (3 types): Automation, parallel execution, shortcuts
-- ✅ Learning opportunities: Best practices, common pitfalls, Skill recommendations
-- ✅ Non-intrusive: Max 1 suggestion per 5 minutes
-- ✅ Risk-based decision making: Low/Medium/High classification
-
----
-
-## When to Use
-
-**Automatic activation**:
-- Risk patterns detected during command execution
-- Repetitive manual operations observed
-- Beginner users encountering learning opportunities
-- Complex workflows with optimization potential
-
-**Manual reference**:
-- Understanding Alfred's suggestion logic
-- Customizing suggestion thresholds
-- Learning risk classification criteria
-
----
-
-## Three Suggestion Categories
-
-### 🚨 Risk Detection (Safety First)
-
-**Purpose**: Prevent data loss, production outages, security vulnerabilities
-
-**6 Risk Patterns**:
-
-1. **Database Migration**: Schema changes, data migrations
-2. **Destructive Operations**: File deletion, force push, reset commands
-3. **Breaking Changes**: API changes, dependency updates
-4. **Production Operations**: Deployment without staging test
-5. **Security Concerns**: Exposed credentials, insecure configs
-6. **Large File Operations**: Editing 100+ line files without tests
-
-**Suggestion style**: Warning + mitigation checklist + confirmation
-
----
-
-### ⚡ Optimization Patterns (Efficiency Boost)
-
-**Purpose**: Reduce manual effort, speed up workflows, suggest automation
-
-**3 Optimization Patterns**:
-
-1. **Repetitive Tasks**: Same operation on 3+ files
-2. **Parallel Execution**: Independent tasks executed sequentially
-3. **Manual Workflows**: GUI-equivalent actions that could use commands
-
-**Suggestion style**: Observation + time savings estimate + automation offer
-
----
-
-### 🎓 Learning Opportunities (Knowledge Growth)
-
-**Purpose**: Educate users on best practices, prevent future mistakes
-
-**Trigger conditions**:
-- Beginner expertise level detected
-- First-time feature usage
-- Common pitfall encountered
-- Suboptimal pattern detected
-
-**Suggestion style**: Educational + Skill recommendation + example
-
----
-
-## Risk Classification System
-
-### Low Risk
-
-**Characteristics**:
-- Read-only operations
-- Documentation updates
-- Typo corrections
-- SPEC edits (non-implementation)
-
-**Confirmation threshold**:
-- Beginner: Confirm
-- Intermediate: Skip
-- Expert: Skip
-
-**Example**: Fix typo in README.md
-
----
-
-### Medium Risk
-
-**Characteristics**:
-- Code changes affecting behavior
-- Test modifications
-- Configuration updates
-- Dependency version bumps
-
-**Confirmation threshold**:
-- Beginner: Confirm + explanation
-- Intermediate: Confirm
-- Expert: Skip
-
-**Example**: Update authentication logic
-
----
-
-### High Risk
-
-**Characteristics**:
-- Database migrations
-- Production deployments
-- Breaking API changes
-- Destructive git operations (force push)
-- Large refactoring (10+ files)
-
-**Confirmation threshold**:
-- Beginner: Confirm + checklist
-- Intermediate: Confirm + checklist
-- Expert: Confirm
-
-**Example**: Migrate 10K user records to new schema
-
----
-
-## Risk Pattern Details
-
-### Pattern 1: Database Migration
-
-**Detection**:
-- SPEC contains "migration", "schema", "database"
-- SQL files modified
-- ORM model changes detected
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-High-risk operation detected: Database migration
-
-Recommended safeguards:
-1. Create database backup
-2. Test on staging environment
-3. Prepare rollback script
-4. Schedule maintenance window
-5. Verify migration in dry-run mode
-
-Proceed?
-  [Yes, precautions taken] [No, cancel] [Show checklist]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 2: Destructive Operations
-
-**Detection**:
-- Commands: `rm`, `git reset --hard`, `git push --force`
-- File deletion requests
-- Irreversible data changes
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Destructive operation detected: Force push to main branch
-
-Risks:
-- Rewrites shared git history
-- Breaks collaborator branches
-- Potential data loss
-
-Alternatives:
-- Use regular push if possible
-- Create new branch instead
-- Discuss with team before force push
-
-Are you absolutely sure?
-  [Cancel] [Proceed with force push]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 3: Breaking Changes
-
-**Detection**:
-- API endpoint signature changes
-- Public function parameter changes
-- Dependency major version update
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Breaking change detected: API endpoint signature modified
-
-Impact analysis:
-- 3 frontend clients affected
-- 5 external integrations impacted
-- Migration guide required
-
-Recommended actions:
-1. Create deprecation notice (v1 → v2)
-2. Maintain backward compatibility for 2 versions
-3. Document migration path
-4. Notify stakeholders
-
-Proceed with breaking change?
-  [Yes, create migration plan] [No, use non-breaking approach]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 4: Production Operations
-
-**Detection**:
-- Deployment target: production
-- No staging test recorded
-- Critical infrastructure change
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Production deployment without staging verification
-
-Checklist:
-- [ ] Tested on staging environment
-- [ ] Rollback plan prepared
-- [ ] Monitoring alerts configured
-- [ ] Team notified
-- [ ] Backup created
-
-Deploy to production?
-  [Yes, checklist complete] [No, test on staging first]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 5: Security Concerns
-
-**Detection**:
-- Credentials in code
-- API keys in environment files
-- Public S3 bucket configuration
-- Insecure HTTP endpoints
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Security concern detected: API key in code
-
-Risk: Exposed credentials if committed to git
-
-Recommended fix:
-1. Move to environment variable (.env)
-2. Add .env to .gitignore
-3. Use secret management (AWS Secrets, Vault)
-4. Rotate compromised key
-
-Fix automatically?
-  [Yes, move to .env] [I'll fix manually]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 6: Large File Operations
-
-**Detection**:
-- Editing file >100 lines
-- No test coverage for file
-- Complex logic modification
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Large file edit detected: 250 lines modified
-
-Risk: Regression without test coverage
-
-Recommendation:
-1. Write tests before refactoring (TDD)
-2. Break into smaller changes
-3. Use /alfred:2-run for TDD workflow
-
-Proceed?
-  [Pause, write tests first] [Continue without tests]
-```
-
----
-
-## Optimization Pattern Details
-
-### Pattern 1: Repetitive Tasks
-
-**Detection**:
-- Same operation on 3+ files
-- Similar edits detected
-- Pattern recognition threshold reached
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Repetitive pattern detected: Updating import statements in 5 files
-
-Automation opportunity:
-- Analyze your last 2 edits
-- Generate batch script
-- Apply to remaining 3 files
-- Estimated time saved: 10 minutes
-
-Create automation?
-  [Yes, generate script] [No, continue manually]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 2: Parallel Execution
-
-**Detection**:
-- Sequential tasks with no dependencies
-- Independent test suites
-- Multiple API calls in sequence
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Parallel execution opportunity detected
-
-Current workflow:
-1. Run unit tests (2 min)
-2. Run integration tests (3 min)
-3. Run E2E tests (5 min)
-Total: 10 minutes sequential
-
-Optimized workflow:
-1. Run all test suites in parallel
-Total: 5 minutes (max of 3 durations)
-
-Time saved: 5 minutes (50%)
-
-Enable parallel execution?
-  [Yes, run in parallel] [No, keep sequential]
-```
-
----
-
-### Pattern 3: Manual Workflows
-
-**Detection**:
-- Performing git operations manually
-- Manual file creation instead of commands
-- Repetitive confirmation steps
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Manual workflow detected: Creating SPEC files by hand
-
-Automation available:
-- Use /alfred:1-plan for automated SPEC creation
-- Includes EARS validation
-- Auto-generates @TAGs
-- Ensures completeness
-
-Time saved per SPEC: 15 minutes
-Quality improvement: +30% (validation)
-
-Switch to /alfred:1-plan?
-  [Yes, use command] [No, prefer manual]
-```
-
----
-
-## Learning Opportunity Patterns
-
-### Beginner: First-Time Feature Usage
-
-**Detection**:
-- User invokes `/alfred:*` command for first time
-- Complex workflow initiated
-- Expertise level: Beginner
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-First-time SPEC creation detected
-
-Learning resources:
-- Skill("moai-foundation-specs") - SPEC structure guide
-- Skill("moai-foundation-ears") - EARS requirements format
-- Skill("moai-alfred-spec-metadata-validation") - Validation rules
-
-Would you like a step-by-step walkthrough?
-  [Yes, guide me] [No, I'll explore]
-```
-
----
-
-### Intermediate: Suboptimal Pattern
-
-**Detection**:
-- User creates tests after implementation (not TDD)
-- Missing @TAG references
-- Skipping TRUST 5 validation
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Observation: Tests written after implementation
-
-Best practice: TDD (Test-First)
-- Write failing test first (RED)
-- Implement to pass test (GREEN)
-- Refactor with safety net (REFACTOR)
-
-Benefits:
-- 40% fewer bugs (industry data)
-- Better code design
-- Confidence in refactoring
-
-Learn TDD workflow:
-- Skill("moai-foundation-trust") - TRUST 5 principles
-
-Switch to TDD next time?
-  [Yes, remind me] [No, I prefer current approach]
-```
-
----
-
-### Expert: Advanced Technique
-
-**Detection**:
-- Complex workflow detected
-- Expert expertise level
-- Rare suggestion opportunity
-
-**Suggestion**:
-```
-Advanced technique available: Custom agent creation
-
-Your workflow could benefit from specialized agent:
-- Pattern: Frequent API integration testing
-- Candidate: api-integration-tester sub-agent
-- Time saved: 20 min/week
-
-Would you like guidance on custom agent creation?
-  [Yes, show me how] [No, not now]
-```
-
----
-
-## Suggestion Frequency Limits
-
-**Non-intrusive constraint**: Max 1 suggestion per 5 minutes
-
-**Rationale**:
-- Avoid alert fatigue
-- Maintain user flow state
-- Prioritize high-value suggestions
-
-**Priority ranking** (when multiple suggestions eligible):
-
-1. **High-risk warnings** (always shown)
-2. **Medium-risk warnings** (shown if no high-risk)
-3. **Optimization patterns** (shown if no risks)
-4. **Learning opportunities** (lowest priority)
-
----
-
-## Integration with Expertise Detection
-
-**Suggestion threshold by expertise level**:
-
-| Expertise | Suggestions/Session | Focus Area |
-|-----------|---------------------|------------|
-| **Beginner** | 3-5 | Learning opportunities + risks |
-| **Intermediate** | 2-3 | Optimizations + medium risks |
-| **Expert** | 1-2 | Advanced techniques + high risks |
-
----
-
-## Key Principles
-
-1. **User Retains Control**: All suggestions are optional
-2. **Non-Intrusive**: Limited frequency prevents alert fatigue
-3. **Contextual**: Suggestions based on current workflow state
-4. **Actionable**: Every suggestion includes clear next steps
-5. **Educational**: Explain rationale and benefits
-
----
-
-**End of Skill** | 2025-11-02