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/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
+++ b/data/skills/superpowers/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+# Code Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a code reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Review completed work against requirements and code quality standards before it cascades into more work.
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review code changes"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture,
+    design patterns, and best practices. Your job is to review completed work
+    against its plan or requirements and identify issues before they cascade.
+
+    ## What Was Implemented
+
+    {DESCRIPTION}
+
+    ## Requirements / Plan
+
+    {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
+
+    ## Git Range to Review
+
+    **Base:** {BASE_SHA}
+    **Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
+
+    ```bash
+    git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    ```
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    **Plan alignment:**
+    - Does the implementation match the plan / requirements?
+    - Are deviations justified improvements, or problematic departures?
+    - Is all planned functionality present?
+
+    **Code quality:**
+    - Clean separation of concerns?
+    - Proper error handling?
+    - Type safety where applicable?
+    - DRY without premature abstraction?
+    - Edge cases handled?
+
+    **Architecture:**
+    - Sound design decisions?
+    - Reasonable scalability and performance?
+    - Security concerns?
+    - Integrates cleanly with surrounding code?
+
+    **Testing:**
+    - Tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
+    - Edge cases covered?
+    - Integration tests where they matter?
+    - All tests passing?
+
+    **Production readiness:**
+    - Migration strategy if schema changed?
+    - Backward compatibility considered?
+    - Documentation complete?
+    - No obvious bugs?
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
+    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
+    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
+
+    If you find significant deviations from the plan, flag them specifically
+    so the implementer can confirm whether the deviation was intentional.
+    If you find issues with the plan itself rather than the implementation,
+    say so.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ### Strengths
+    [What's well done? Be specific.]
+
+    ### Issues
+
+    #### Critical (Must Fix)
+    [Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
+
+    #### Important (Should Fix)
+    [Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
+
+    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
+    [Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation polish]
+
+    For each issue:
+    - File:line reference
+    - What's wrong
+    - Why it matters
+    - How to fix (if not obvious)
+
+    ### Recommendations
+    [Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
+
+    ### Assessment
+
+    **Ready to merge?** [Yes | No | With fixes]
+
+    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
+
+    ## Critical Rules
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Categorize by actual severity
+    - Be specific (file:line, not vague)
+    - Explain WHY each issue matters
+    - Acknowledge strengths
+    - Give a clear verdict
+
+    **DON'T:**
+    - Say "looks good" without checking
+    - Mark nitpicks as Critical
+    - Give feedback on code you didn't actually read
+    - Be vague ("improve error handling")
+    - Avoid giving a clear verdict
+```
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` — brief summary of what was built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` — what it should do (plan file path, task text, or requirements)
+- `{BASE_SHA}` — starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` — ending commit
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical / Important / Minor), Recommendations, Assessment
+
+## Example Output
+
+```
+### Strengths
+- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
+- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
+- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Important
+1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
+   - File: index-conversations:1-31
+   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
+   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
+
+2. **Date validation missing**
+   - File: search.ts:25-27
+   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
+   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
+
+#### Minor
+1. **Progress indicators**
+   - File: indexer.ts:130
+   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
+   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
+
+### Recommendations
+- Add progress reporting for user experience
+- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: With fixes**
+
+**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
+```