v1.13.12: skills audit + token-tracking fix + codecontext + cap50 + UI cleanups

Multi-topic batch. The big-ticket item is the skills audit; the rest are smaller patches that compounded during the audit work. ## Skills audit (rules→recipes split) Vendored all 26 skills from /home/samkintop/opt/skills/ into data/skills/ (the boocode-repo-local skill library — see docker-compose change below). Audited via 5 parallel Claude Code agent-teams running the mgechev/skills-best-practices 4-step protocol (Discovery → Logic → Edge Case → self-Architecture-Refinement) per skill, ~2 min wall-clock vs the ~3.7-hour serial estimate. Result: 14 skills surviving (renamed to gerund form, frontmatter matched), 11 deleted (duplicates, BooCode-irrelevant patterns, Claude-already-does- natively), 1 migrated to BOOCHAT.md/BOOCODER.md as an always-true rule (verification-before-completion). Each surviving skill had its description refined to fix specific trigger gaps surfaced by the protocol — 4 real-bug findings landed (dead refs, stale tags, broken sub-file references in the original vendored content). Audit decisions documented in openspec/changes/v1.13.12-skills-audit/ audit-notes.md. Convention codified in BOOCHAT.md/BOOCODER.md "rules vs recipes" sections — future workflow rules go to those files (100% present), recipes stay in data/skills/ (~6% invoke rate in multi-turn per the Codeminer42 measurement). ## Token tracking + stale-stream banner fix (same root cause) ws-frames.ts IsoTimestamp was z.string().min(1) but postgres returns timestamp columns as JS Date objects. Every message_complete / session_updated / chat_updated frame was failing the v1.13.11 Zod gate and being silently dropped. Symptoms: token tracking blank in the UI (no usage frames landed); the 60s no-token-activity timer tripped the stale-stream banner because the frontend's local message state never saw status='streaming' flip to 'complete'. Fix: z.preprocess(v => v instanceof Date ? v.toISOString() : v, z.string().min(1)) applied to the IsoTimestamp primitive. Centralized, no publisher changes, works identically server + web (the parity test still passes). ## Codecontext .codecontextignore auto-install services/codecontext_client.ts now copies the codecontext/.codecontextignore.template into any project's root on the first call to that project if no .codecontextignore exists. One file written per project, idempotent (in-memory Set guard + access-check), silent fallback on read-only project. Stops the upstream empty-source- file parser crash on foreign projects' node_modules — previously required manually copying the template per project. ## Tool-call budget cap 30 → 50 services/inference/budget.ts: BUDGET_READ_ONLY and BUDGET_NO_AGENT bumped to 50 (from 30). BUDGET_NON_READ_ONLY stays at 10 (no write tools landed yet). Real recon sessions were hitting 30 with ~3 turns wasted on codecontext parse failures; legitimate need was ~27, and Architect-class system overviews want deeper recon. Headroom of 20 absorbs failure-retry turns without changing the safety floor — the doom-loop guard (3 identical calls → abort) catches the actual failure mode this cap was guarding against. v1.14 (Phase C outer agent loop) will supersede this via per-agent agent.steps. Throwaway-ish patch but unblocks deeper recon today. ## UI cleanups - ChatPane queued-message dropdown removed. Each queued message now has three buttons: edit (pop back into ChatInput via sendToChat event), force-send (was the dropdown's only useful action), and cancel. Default behavior (send when streaming completes) needs no UI — it's the implicit do-nothing path. - ChatThroughput removed from desktop tab strip (ChatTabBar.tsx). Mobile tab switcher still shows it. ## Plumbing - .gitignore: data/* + !data/AGENTS.md + !data/skills/ negation patterns so the vendored skill library + agent registry become git-tracked while session DB state stays out. - docker-compose.yml: removed /opt/skills:/data/skills override mount. Skills now live in the boocode repo at data/skills/, auditable per-batch. The host-level /opt/skills/ is preserved untouched for any other tools that read from it. - .codecontextignore at repo root: auto-installed when codecontext was first called against /opt/boocode itself; matches the template. - CLAUDE.md: updated to document the v1.13.11 publishFrame wrapper + message_parts table + tool_cost_stats view + DB-integration test pattern + host-side smoke endpoint quirk. (Pre-existing in working tree before this batch; shipped here for completeness.) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-22 18:58:30 +00:00
parent bc376c878d
commit 0fa46cd06c
80 changed files with 6950 additions and 39 deletions
--- a/data/skills/superpowers/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md
+++ b/data/skills/superpowers/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: receiving-code-review
+description: Use when receiving any code review feedback (PR comments, inline suggestions, teammate feedback) before implementing suggestions - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+---
+
+# Code Review Reception
+
+## Overview
+
+Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+
+## The Response Pattern
+
+```
+WHEN receiving code review feedback:
+
+1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
+2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
+3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
+4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
+5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
+6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
+```
+
+## Forbidden Responses
+
+**NEVER:**
+- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
+- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
+- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
+
+**INSTEAD:**
+- Restate the technical requirement
+- Ask clarifying questions
+- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
+- Just start working (actions > words)
+
+## Handling Unclear Feedback
+
+```
+IF any item is unclear:
+  STOP - do not implement anything yet
+  ASK for clarification on unclear items
+
+WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+
+❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
+✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
+```
+
+## Source-Specific Handling
+
+### From your human partner
+- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
+- **Still ask** if scope unclear
+- **No performative agreement**
+- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
+
+### From External Reviewers
+```
+BEFORE implementing:
+  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
+  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
+  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
+  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
+  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
+
+IF suggestion seems wrong:
+  Push back with technical reasoning
+
+IF can't easily verify:
+  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+
+IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
+
+## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
+
+```
+IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
+  grep codebase for actual usage
+
+  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
+  IF used: Then implement properly
+```
+
+**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+
+## Implementation Order
+
+```
+FOR multi-item feedback:
+  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
+  2. Then implement in this order:
+     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
+     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
+     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
+  3. Test each fix individually
+  4. Verify no regressions
+```
+
+## When To Push Back
+
+Push back when:
+- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
+- Reviewer lacks full context
+- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
+- Technically incorrect for this stack
+- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
+- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+
+**How to push back:**
+- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
+- Ask specific questions
+- Reference working tests/code
+- Involve your human partner if architectural
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
+
+When feedback IS correct:
+```
+✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
+✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
+✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
+
+❌ "You're absolutely right!"
+❌ "Great point!"
+❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
+❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
+❌ ANY gratitude expression
+```
+
+**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+
+**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+
+## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
+
+If you pushed back and were wrong:
+```
+✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
+✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
+
+❌ Long apology
+❌ Defending why you pushed back
+❌ Over-explaining
+```
+
+State the correction factually and move on.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
+| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
+| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
+| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
+| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
+| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
+| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
+
+## Real Examples
+
+**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
+```
+
+**Technical Verification (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
+```
+
+**YAGNI (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
+✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
+```
+
+**Unclear Item (Good):**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
+```
+
+## GitHub Thread Replies
+
+When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
--- a/data/skills/superpowers/receiving-code-review/eval.yaml
+++ b/data/skills/superpowers/receiving-code-review/eval.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: receiving-code-review
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "The reviewer left 12 comments on my PR. Here they are: [...]. What do I do?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the receiving-code-review skill
+      - the response evaluates each comment on technical merit rather than blindly accepting
+      - the response distinguishes valid criticism from stylistic preference
+  - prompt: "The reviewer said my function name is bad but I think it's fine. How should I respond?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the receiving-code-review skill
+      - the response addresses verification rather than performative agreement
+  - prompt: "Tell me a joke"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the receiving-code-review skill