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>

.codecontextignore

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# .codecontextignore — paths codecontext skips during analysis
+# Copy to your project root and customize. Same syntax as .gitignore.
+
+# Dependencies / vendored code
+node_modules/
+vendor/
+.venv/
+venv/
+__pycache__/
+target/
+
+# Build artifacts
+dist/
+build/
+out/
+.next/
+.nuxt/
+.svelte-kit/
+
+# IDE / tooling
+.opencode/
+.vscode/
+.idea/
+
+# Test artifacts / coverage
+coverage/
+.nyc_output/
+.pytest_cache/
+
+# Lock files (rarely have meaningful symbols)
+package-lock.json
+yarn.lock
+pnpm-lock.yaml

.gitignore

@@ -7,4 +7,6 @@ CLAUDE.local.md
 .vite
 coverage
 secrets/
-data/
+data/*
+!data/AGENTS.md
+!data/skills/

BOOCHAT.md

@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
 - Cite file paths + line numbers for any claim about the codebase
 - When uncertain about scope or intent, surface options via `ask_user_input` rather than guessing
 - Prefer codecontext (`search_symbols`, `get_symbol_info`, `get_dependencies`) over `grep` for symbol-level questions. Fall back to `grep` / `view_file` when codecontext returns degraded or empty results — that signals an unsupported language or parse failure.
+- Verify before reporting work complete: run the relevant test/build/smoke command and confirm output matches the claim. Evidence first, assertion second.
+
+## Convention: rules vs recipes
+
+Always-true rules (process discipline, refusals, behavior contracts) live here in `BOOCHAT.md` — and in `BOOCODER.md` / `CLAUDE.md` per their scopes — where they are 100% present in every turn. On-demand recipes (specific procedures, scaffolds, checklists) live in `/data/skills/` and invoke roughly 6% of the time in clean multi-turn flow (Codeminer42 measurement, 2026). Don't file workflow rules as skills — they silently misfire. See Anthropic agent-skills best-practices (platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/agent-skills/best-practices) for the canonical conventions.
 
 ## Known limitations
 

BOOCODER.md

@@ -20,3 +20,8 @@
 - Show a diff preview before any write
 - Group related edits into a single `/apply` batch
 - If a tool fails, surface the error verbatim — don't paper over it
+- Verify before reporting work complete: run the relevant test/build/smoke and confirm output matches the claim. Evidence first, assertion second.
+
+## Convention: rules vs recipes
+
+Always-true rules live here, in `BOOCHAT.md`, and in `CLAUDE.md` (100% present each turn). On-demand recipes live in `/data/skills/` (roughly 6% invoke rate in multi-turn per Codeminer42, 2026). Don't file workflow rules as skills — they misfire. See Anthropic agent-skills best-practices (platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/agent-skills/best-practices).

CLAUDE.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ Key services:
 - **`chat_status` frame shape** (published via `broker.publishUser`) — `status: 'streaming' | 'tool_running' | 'waiting_for_input' | 'idle' | 'error'` (widened from `working|idle|error` in v1.12.1). Frontend `useChatStatus` derives `idle_warm` (<30s since idle) vs `idle_cold`. `ChatThroughput` renders inline beside `StatusDot` only when streaming or tool_running, fed by 500ms-throttled `'usage'` WS frames (`completion_tokens` + `ctx_used` + `ctx_max`). The `POST /api/chats/:id/discard_stale` endpoint exists to mark a stuck-streaming row as `failed` when the frontend's 60s no-token-activity timer (`ChatPane` content-length watcher) gives up.
 - **Boot-time stale-streaming sweep** in `apps/server/src/index.ts` after `applySchema()`: any `messages.status='streaming'` older than 5 minutes flips to `'failed'`. Logs only on non-zero count. Recovers from container restart while inference was mid-stream (v1.12.1).
 - **Periodic 60s sweeper** in `apps/server/src/index.ts` (v1.13.3 + v1.13.5). Same `setInterval` runs `sweepStaleStreaming` (marks `messages.status='streaming'` older than 5 min as `failed`, publishes `chat_status='idle'` so the UI dot drops) and `cleanupTruncations` (TTL + orphan reap of tmpfs truncation files). `app.addHook('onClose')` clears the timer. No-op when nothing to reap.
-- **`services/broker.ts`** — In-memory pub/sub with two channel types: per-session (message streaming) and per-user (sidebar updates). No persistence; clients reconnect on restart.
+- **`services/broker.ts`** — In-memory pub/sub with two channel types: per-session (message streaming) and per-user (sidebar updates). No persistence; clients reconnect on restart. v1.13.11: every WS publish goes through `broker.publishFrame(sessionId, frame)` or `broker.publishUserFrame(user, frame)` — both Zod-validate against `WsFrameSchema` (`types/ws-frames.ts`) and fail-closed (log + drop). `ctx.publish` / `ctx.publishUser` in inference + auto_name route through the index.ts adapter that calls publishFrame internally. The schema is duplicated byte-identical at `apps/web/src/api/ws-frames.ts`; a `ws-frames.test.ts` case enforces parity. Don't add new raw `broker.publish()` / `publishUser()` calls.
 - **`services/tools.ts`** — Tool registry (`ALL_TOOLS`, `READ_ONLY_TOOL_NAMES`, `TOOLS_BY_NAME`). Filesystem tools (view_file/list_dir/grep/find_files) go through three guard layers: `path_guard.ts` (workspace scope), `secret_guard.ts` (filename deny list), `url_guard.ts` (SSRF/private-IP block for web_fetch). v1.11.8+ web tools (`web_search`, `web_fetch`) are opt-in per chat via `session.web_search_enabled` (resolved with `project.default_web_search_enabled` fallback) and filtered out of the LLM's tool schema when false. v1.13.5 truncation: when a tool slice cuts content, `services/truncate.ts` stashes the full text on tmpfs at `BOOCODE_TRUNCATION_DIR` (default `/tmp/boocode-truncations`, 0o700) keyed by an opaque `tr_<12 base32 chars>` id, and the `view_truncated_output(id)` tool retrieves it. 5MB cap (matches `view_file`'s `MAX_FILE_BYTES`), 7-day TTL, reaped by the periodic sweeper. Tmpfs path means container restart loses retrieval — acceptable, the model usually has moved on.
 - **`services/compaction.ts`** + **`services/model-context.ts`** — v1.11.0 anchored rolling summary (single `summary=true` assistant row per chat, supersedes itself on each compaction). Triggered when `chats.needs_compaction` is set after an inference turn exceeds `usable(ctx_max) = floor(0.85 × ctx_max)` (v1.13.9 opencode-pattern early trigger; was `ctx_max - 20k` pre-v1.13.9, which gave only 7.6% headroom at 262k and 0 budget for ≤20k contexts). **`ctx_max` comes from `model-context.getModelContext()` which fetches `${LLAMA_SWAP_URL}/upstream/<model>/props`** — NOT from `parsed.timings.n_ctx` (the stream completion's `timings` doesn't carry n_ctx; that read was dead code until v1.11.3 ripped it out). First inferences after a boocode boot may have `ctx_max=NULL` if llama-swap hasn't loaded the model yet; negative cache TTL is 60s, recovers on next turn. v1.13.6: `buildHeadPayload` embeds `reasoning_parts` as a `<reasoning>...</reasoning>` prose prefix on the assistant `content` (OpenAI wire shape has no structured reasoning field; the summarizer reads text). Standalone tag when content is empty (tool-call-only turn). `buildHeadPayload` + `OpenAiMessage` exported for test access — keep them exported.
 - **`services/system-prompt.ts`** — `buildSystemPrompt` is the string-returning shim; `buildSystemPromptWithFingerprint` is the canonical impl returning `{prompt, fingerprint, drift}`. v1.13.8 instrumentation: SHA-256 of the assembled prefix is logged per `buildMessagesPayload` call (msg `prefix-fingerprint`, level=info); a `Map<sessionId, lastHash>` observer fires `prefix-drift` (level=warn) on hash change with a field-level `changed_inputs` diff. Smoke proved the prefix is byte-stable across turns in steady-state — the originally-planned `system_prompt_cache` DB table was dropped as redundant against the v1.12.0 input-layer mtime caches (BOOCHAT.md here + AGENTS.md global+per-project in `agents.ts:safeStat`).
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ Sessions hold 1–5 panes (chat / empty / placeholder terminal+agent). v1.12.1 m
 
 ## Database
 
-PostgreSQL 16. Tables: `projects`, `sessions`, `chats`, `messages`, `settings`. (`session_panes` was dropped in v1.12.1; workspace pane state lives in `sessions.workspace_panes jsonb`.) Schema applied idempotently on startup via `applySchema()`. Use `clock_timestamp()` (not `NOW()`) inside transactions. CHECK constraints in place: `projects_status_chk` ('open'|'archived'), `sessions_status_chk` (same), `chats_status_chk` (same), `messages_role_chk`, `messages_status_chk` — keep in sync with the `*_STATUSES` const arrays in `apps/server/src/types/api.ts`. The older anonymous `messages_status_check` (without 'cancelled') and `messages_role_check` (without 'system') were dropped in v1.12.1; only the `_chk` variants remain.
+PostgreSQL 16. Tables: `projects`, `sessions`, `chats`, `messages`, `settings`, `message_parts` (v1.13.0). Views: `messages_with_parts` (v1.13.1-B parts-merge read path), `tool_cost_stats` (v1.13.10 per-tool 100-call rolling window). (`session_panes` was dropped in v1.12.1; workspace pane state lives in `sessions.workspace_panes jsonb`.) Schema applied idempotently on startup via `applySchema()`. Use `clock_timestamp()` (not `NOW()`) inside transactions. CHECK constraints in place: `projects_status_chk` ('open'|'archived'), `sessions_status_chk` (same), `chats_status_chk` (same), `messages_role_chk`, `messages_status_chk` — keep in sync with the `*_STATUSES` const arrays in `apps/server/src/types/api.ts`. The older anonymous `messages_status_check` (without 'cancelled') and `messages_role_check` (without 'system') were dropped in v1.12.1; only the `_chk` variants remain.
 
 Schema CHECK migration order when renaming allowed values: (1) `ALTER TABLE ... DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS <system_name>` (inline `CREATE TABLE` checks get `<table>_<column>_check`), (2) `UPDATE` rows to new values, (3) wrap new constraint ADD in `DO $$ ... pg_constraint` guard — that block is the only way to get `ADD CONSTRAINT IF NOT EXISTS`.
 
@@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ Required: `DATABASE_URL`, `LLAMA_SWAP_URL`. Optional: `PORT` (3000), `HOST` (0.0
 - Deploy: `cd /opt/boocode && docker compose up --build -d` (or `docker compose build --no-cache boocode && docker compose up -d` if you suspect a layer-cache issue).
 - Git push to Gitea: `GIT_SSH_COMMAND="ssh -i /opt/boocode/secrets/boocode_gitea -o IdentitiesOnly=yes" git push origin <branch>`. The default agent identity is rejected; the in-repo deploy key (`secrets/`, gitignored) is the working one. Transient `Connection reset by peer` retries cleanly after `sleep 5`.
 - Don't accumulate `.bak-*` files. Clean them up in the same batch or immediately after merge.
+- DB-integration tests opt-in via env var: `DATABASE_URL='postgres://boocode:devpass@localhost:5500/boocode' pnpm -C apps/server test`. Host port is 5500 (mapped from `boocode_db:5432`); password is `${POSTGRES_PASSWORD}` from `.env` (`devpass`), NOT the literal in `.env`'s `DATABASE_URL=postgres://boocode:Ketchup1479@boocode_db:5432/...` line. Pattern: `describe.runIf(!!process.env.DATABASE_URL)(...)` with a `beforeAll` that applies the schema via `sql.unsafe(readFileSync(schemaPath))`. Tests skip cleanly when var is unset. `tool_cost_stats.test.ts` is the reference.
+- Host-side smoke endpoint: `curl http://100.114.205.53:9500/api/...`. The boocode container's port mapping binds to the Tailscale IP, not `0.0.0.0`, so `localhost:9500` doesn't work from the host shell. Same for booterm at `:9501`.
 - Fastify global JSON parser tolerates empty bodies (overridden in `index.ts`); bodyless POSTs (archive, unarchive, stop) work without setting `Content-Type` tricks on the client.
 - Event dedup discipline: for any mutation the server publishes via `broker.publishUser`, do NOT add a local `sessionEvents.emit(...)` after the API call — `useUserEvents` forwards the WS frame onto the bus. Frontend mutation handlers must be idempotent (dedup by id, no-op on already-present).
 - `node:20-*` base images ship a `node` user at uid/gid 1000 — delete it (`userdel`/`groupdel` on debian, `deluser`/`delgroup` on alpine) before adding samkintop at 1000.

apps/server/src/services/codecontext_client.ts

@@ -16,9 +16,41 @@
 //      file parser bug (upstream issue #37) returns a generic error string,
 //      which we re-surface with a hint to add the file to .codecontextignore.
 
-import { realpath } from 'node:fs/promises';
+import { access, copyFile, realpath } from 'node:fs/promises';
+import { join } from 'node:path';
 import { truncateIfNeeded } from './truncate.js';
 
+// v1.13.12 fix: codecontext crashes on empty source files (upstream issue #37)
+// when it can't ignore them. The .codecontextignore.template ships with the
+// project at /opt/boocode/codecontext/.codecontextignore.template (path inside
+// the container; the host's /opt is bind-mounted). On the first call to any
+// project, copy the template in if no per-project ignore exists yet. The user
+// can subsequently edit the file to customize. Idempotent — once any file is
+// at the project root we never overwrite.
+const IGNORE_TEMPLATE_PATH = '/opt/boocode/codecontext/.codecontextignore.template';
+const ensuredIgnoreProjects = new Set<string>();
+
+async function ensureIgnoreFile(projectRoot: string): Promise<void> {
+  if (ensuredIgnoreProjects.has(projectRoot)) return;
+  const ignorePath = join(projectRoot, '.codecontextignore');
+  try {
+    await access(ignorePath);
+    ensuredIgnoreProjects.add(projectRoot);
+    return;
+  } catch {
+    // missing — install the default
+  }
+  try {
+    await copyFile(IGNORE_TEMPLATE_PATH, ignorePath);
+    ensuredIgnoreProjects.add(projectRoot);
+  } catch {
+    // Template missing or project root read-only — proceed without it. The
+    // codecontext call may still crash on empty source files; the model gets
+    // the existing hint-message via the catch below telling it to add to
+    // .codecontextignore manually.
+  }
+}
+
 export interface CodecontextRequest {
   toolName: string;
   args: Record<string, unknown>;
@@ -46,6 +78,10 @@ export async function callCodecontext(
   // never pass target_dir; tests can override). A non-existent target_dir
   // throws before we hit the network so the model gets a sharp error.
   const resolvedProject = await realpath(req.projectPath);
+  // v1.13.12 fix: install the default .codecontextignore on first call to any
+  // project so codecontext doesn't crash on empty node_modules files. One file
+  // written per project, idempotent (set-membership check inside).
+  await ensureIgnoreFile(resolvedProject);
   const requestedTarget = req.args['target_dir'];
   const targetDir = typeof requestedTarget === 'string' && requestedTarget.length > 0
     ? requestedTarget

apps/server/src/services/inference/budget.ts

@@ -3,17 +3,24 @@ import { READ_ONLY_TOOL_NAMES } from '../tools.js';
 
 // v1.8.2: tool-call budget defaults. Resolved per-turn by resolveToolBudget.
 //   - Agent with explicit max_tool_calls: that value.
-//   - Agent with read-only-only tools:    BUDGET_READ_ONLY (30).
+//   - Agent with read-only-only tools:    BUDGET_READ_ONLY (50).
 //   - Agent with any non-read-only tool:  BUDGET_NON_READ_ONLY (10).
-//   - No agent (raw chat):                BUDGET_NO_AGENT (30).
+//   - No agent (raw chat):                BUDGET_NO_AGENT (50).
 // v1.13.7: bumped BUDGET_NO_AGENT 15→30 to match BUDGET_READ_ONLY. Every tool
 // in ALL_TOOLS today is read-only (see services/tools.ts comment at
 // READ_ONLY_TOOL_NAMES); the cautious 15-cap was a forward-looking guard for
 // write tools that haven't landed yet. No-agent mode gets the same toolset as
 // an all-read-only agent at runtime, so they should share the same budget.
-export const BUDGET_READ_ONLY = 30;
+// v1.13.12: bumped read-only caps 30→50. Real recon sessions were hitting 30
+// with ~3 turns wasted on codecontext parse failures (empty node_modules
+// files); legitimate need was ~27, and Architect-class system overviews want
+// deeper recon than a 30-cap permits. Headroom of 20 absorbs failure-retry
+// turns + deeper exploration without changing the safety floor materially —
+// the doom-loop guard (3 identical calls → abort) catches the actual failure
+// mode this cap was guarding against.
+export const BUDGET_READ_ONLY = 50;
 export const BUDGET_NON_READ_ONLY = 10;
-export const BUDGET_NO_AGENT = 30;
+export const BUDGET_NO_AGENT = 50;
 
 const READ_ONLY_SET: ReadonlySet<string> = new Set(READ_ONLY_TOOL_NAMES);
 

apps/server/src/types/ws-frames.ts

@@ -19,7 +19,17 @@ import { z } from 'zod';
 const Uuid = z.string().uuid();
 // Tool call IDs are model-emitted (e.g. "call_abc123") — not UUIDs.
 const ToolCallId = z.string().min(1);
-const IsoTimestamp = z.string().min(1);
+// v1.13.12 fix: postgres returns timestamp columns as JS Date objects, not
+// strings. The publish sites pass them through unchanged, so the schema must
+// tolerate both. preprocess converts Date → ISO string before string-validation;
+// on the web side (where frames arrive via JSON.parse) it's a no-op. Before
+// this fix, every message_complete / session_updated / chat_updated frame
+// failed validation and got dropped — symptoms: token tracking blank in UI,
+// status stuck at 'streaming' tripping the 60s stale-stream banner.
+const IsoTimestamp = z.preprocess(
+  (v) => (v instanceof Date ? v.toISOString() : v),
+  z.string().min(1),
+);
 
 const ChatStatusValue = z.enum([
   'streaming',

apps/web/src/api/ws-frames.ts

@@ -19,7 +19,17 @@ import { z } from 'zod';
 const Uuid = z.string().uuid();
 // Tool call IDs are model-emitted (e.g. "call_abc123") — not UUIDs.
 const ToolCallId = z.string().min(1);
-const IsoTimestamp = z.string().min(1);
+// v1.13.12 fix: postgres returns timestamp columns as JS Date objects, not
+// strings. The publish sites pass them through unchanged, so the schema must
+// tolerate both. preprocess converts Date → ISO string before string-validation;
+// on the web side (where frames arrive via JSON.parse) it's a no-op. Before
+// this fix, every message_complete / session_updated / chat_updated frame
+// failed validation and got dropped — symptoms: token tracking blank in UI,
+// status stuck at 'streaming' tripping the 60s stale-stream banner.
+const IsoTimestamp = z.preprocess(
+  (v) => (v instanceof Date ? v.toISOString() : v),
+  z.string().min(1),
+);
 
 const ChatStatusValue = z.enum([
   'streaming',

apps/web/src/components/ChatTabBar.tsx

@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ import { useState } from 'react';
 import { Bot, History, MessageSquare, Plus, Terminal, X } from 'lucide-react';
 import type { Chat, WorkspacePane } from '@/api/types';
 import { StatusDot } from '@/components/StatusDot';
-import { ChatThroughput } from '@/components/ChatThroughput';
 import {
   ContextMenu,
   ContextMenuContent,
@@ -100,7 +99,6 @@ export function ChatTabBar({
               >
                 <MessageSquare size={12} className="shrink-0" />
                 <StatusDot chatId={chat.id} />
-                <ChatThroughput chatId={chat.id} />
                 {renamingId === chat.id ? (
                   <input
                     autoFocus

apps/web/src/components/panes/ChatPane.tsx

@@ -1,17 +1,12 @@
 import { useCallback, useEffect, useRef, useState } from 'react';
-import { ChevronDown, Square, X } from 'lucide-react';
+import { Pencil, Send, Square, X } from 'lucide-react';
 import { toast } from 'sonner';
 import { api } from '@/api/client';
 import { useSessionStream } from '@/hooks/useSessionStream';
 import { MessageList } from '@/components/MessageList';
 import { ChatInput } from '@/components/ChatInput';
 import { StaleStreamBanner } from '@/components/StaleStreamBanner';
-import {
-  DropdownMenu,
-  DropdownMenuContent,
-  DropdownMenuItem,
-  DropdownMenuTrigger,
-} from '@/components/ui/dropdown-menu';
+import { sendToChat } from '@/lib/events';
 
 interface Props {
   sessionId: string;
@@ -186,6 +181,16 @@ export function ChatPane({ sessionId, chatId, projectId, agentId, onAgentChange,
     setQueue((prev) => prev.filter((_, i) => i !== idx));
   }
 
+  // v1.13.12: edit a queued message — pop it off the queue and push its text
+  // into ChatInput via sendToChat. ChatInput appends (or sets, if empty) and
+  // focuses; user re-sends, which re-queues if streaming is still active.
+  function editQueued(idx: number) {
+    const msg = queue[idx];
+    if (!msg) return;
+    setQueue((prev) => prev.filter((_, i) => i !== idx));
+    sendToChat.emit({ chat_id: chatId, text: msg });
+  }
+
   async function forceSendQueued(idx: number) {
     const msg = queue[idx];
     if (!msg) return;
@@ -210,30 +215,30 @@ export function ChatPane({ sessionId, chatId, projectId, agentId, onAgentChange,
             <div key={i} className="flex items-center gap-2 text-xs text-muted-foreground bg-muted/30 rounded px-2 py-1">
               <span className="font-medium shrink-0">Queued:</span>
               <span className="truncate flex-1">{msg}</span>
-              <DropdownMenu>
-                <DropdownMenuTrigger asChild>
-                  <button
-                    type="button"
-                    className="inline-flex items-center justify-center p-0.5 hover:bg-muted rounded shrink-0 max-md:min-h-[44px] max-md:min-w-[44px]"
-                    aria-label="Queued message options"
-                  >
-                    <ChevronDown size={12} />
-                  </button>
-                </DropdownMenuTrigger>
-                <DropdownMenuContent align="end">
-                  <DropdownMenuItem onSelect={() => { /* default: queued, nothing to do */ }}>
-                    Send when done
-                  </DropdownMenuItem>
-                  <DropdownMenuItem onSelect={() => void forceSendQueued(i)}>
-                    Force send now
-                  </DropdownMenuItem>
-                </DropdownMenuContent>
-              </DropdownMenu>
+              <button
+                type="button"
+                onClick={() => editQueued(i)}
+                className="inline-flex items-center justify-center p-0.5 hover:bg-muted rounded shrink-0 max-md:min-h-[44px] max-md:min-w-[44px]"
+                aria-label="Edit queued message"
+                title="Edit"
+              >
+                <Pencil size={12} />
+              </button>
+              <button
+                type="button"
+                onClick={() => void forceSendQueued(i)}
+                className="inline-flex items-center justify-center p-0.5 hover:bg-muted rounded shrink-0 max-md:min-h-[44px] max-md:min-w-[44px]"
+                aria-label="Force send queued message now"
+                title="Force send now"
+              >
+                <Send size={12} />
+              </button>
               <button
                 type="button"
                 onClick={() => removeQueued(i)}
                 className="inline-flex items-center justify-center p-0.5 hover:bg-muted rounded shrink-0 max-md:min-h-[44px] max-md:min-w-[44px]"
                 aria-label="Cancel queued message"
+                title="Cancel"
               >
                 <X size={12} />
               </button>

data/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+# Agents
+
+## Code Reviewer
+---
+temperature: 0.3
+tools: [find_files, get_codebase_overview, get_dependencies, get_file_analysis, get_framework_analysis, get_semantic_neighborhoods, get_symbol_info, grep, list_dir, search_symbols, view_file, watch_changes]
+description: Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and maintainability. Read-only.
+---
+You review code. Find real problems, not style nits.
+
+Process:
+1. Read the file(s) in question with view_file. If a diff is provided, read surrounding context too.
+2. Use grep/find_files to check how changed symbols are used elsewhere.
+3. Cite every finding as file:line.
+
+Prioritize in order:
+1. Bugs and logic errors
+2. Security issues (injection, auth bypass, secret leakage, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, path traversal)
+3. Race conditions, error handling, resource leaks
+4. Performance issues with measurable impact
+5. Maintainability (only if it blocks future work)
+
+Skip: formatting, naming preferences, "consider extracting", "add a comment here". The user has a linter.
+
+Output format:
+- Critical: <file:line> — <issue> — <fix>
+- Major: <file:line> — <issue> — <fix>
+- Minor: <file:line> — <issue> — <fix>
+
+If nothing critical or major, say so in one line. Do not pad.
+
+Codecontext usage:
+- Use get_codebase_overview to orient yourself before reviewing changes.
+- Use search_symbols to find callers of modified functions.
+- Use get_dependencies to trace impact of changes.
+
+
+## Debugger
+---
+temperature: 0.4
+tools: [find_files, get_codebase_overview, get_dependencies, get_file_analysis, get_framework_analysis, get_semantic_neighborhoods, get_symbol_info, grep, list_dir, search_symbols, view_file, watch_changes]
+description: Diagnoses bugs from error messages, logs, or described symptoms.
+---
+You diagnose bugs. Form a hypothesis, prove it with evidence from the code.
+
+Process:
+1. Restate the symptom in one line.
+2. Locate the symbol or frame named in the symptom. Read its definition.
+3. Find callers and related state.
+4. State the root cause with file:line evidence. Propose the minimal fix.
+
+Rules:
+- Never guess. If evidence is missing, say what you need (specific log line, specific file, specific repro step).
+- Distinguish symptom from cause. A null check fixes the symptom; missing init causes it.
+- Off-by-one, race conditions, and silent except blocks are common — check for them.
+- If two plausible causes exist, name both and say what would discriminate.
+
+
+## Refactorer
+---
+temperature: 0.3
+tools: [find_files, get_codebase_overview, get_dependencies, get_file_analysis, get_framework_analysis, get_semantic_neighborhoods, get_symbol_info, grep, list_dir, search_symbols, view_file, watch_changes]
+description: Proposes refactors for clarity, deduplication, or decoupling. Read-only — outputs plans, not edits.
+---
+You propose refactors. You do not apply them. The user applies via OpenCode or Claude Code.
+
+Process:
+1. Read the target file(s).
+2. grep for callers, duplicates, and similar patterns elsewhere in the repo.
+3. Identify the smallest refactor that delivers the goal.
+
+Prioritize:
+1. Deduplication where 3+ sites have near-identical logic
+2. Extracting a function/module when one is doing two unrelated jobs
+3. Decoupling when a change in A forces a change in B unnecessarily
+4. Renaming when a name actively misleads
+
+Reject:
+- Refactors that touch 10+ files for marginal gain
+- "Modernization" with no concrete benefit
+- Abstraction for future flexibility that may never come
+- Style-only changes
+
+Output:
+- Goal: <one line>
+- Scope: <files affected, count of lines roughly>
+- Plan: numbered steps, each one self-contained
+- Risk: <what tests must pass, what could regress>
+- Skip if: <conditions under which this refactor is not worth doing>
+
+Codecontext usage:
+- Use get_dependencies to map call sites before refactoring.
+- Use get_symbol_info to understand each affected symbol.
+- Refactoring without dependency awareness is reckless.
+
+
+## Architect
+---
+temperature: 0.5
+tools: [find_files, get_codebase_overview, get_dependencies, get_file_analysis, get_framework_analysis, get_semantic_neighborhoods, get_symbol_info, grep, list_dir, search_symbols, view_file, watch_changes]
+description: Designs new features, modules, or architectural changes. Outputs a build plan.
+---
+You design. You produce build plans, not code.
+
+Process:
+1. Restate the goal in your own words. Confirm constraints (perf, deploy, deps).
+2. list_dir the relevant areas. Read existing patterns — match them unless there's a reason not to.
+3. Decide: extend existing code or add new module. Justify.
+4. Sketch the data flow: inputs → transforms → outputs → side effects.
+5. Identify integration points: DB schema, API surface, env vars, container boundaries.
+6. List failure modes and how the design handles them.
+
+Rules:
+- Reuse before inventing. If a service/lib in the repo already does this, say so.
+- Prefer boring tech. New deps require justification.
+- Tailscale IPs for internal routing. No 0.0.0.0 binds.
+- Least privilege: separate read/write paths, explicit auth gates.
+- State assumptions inline. Do not ask clarifying questions mid-design unless blocked.
+
+Output:
+- Goal
+- Existing code to reuse: <file paths>
+- New code: <file paths, one-line purpose each>
+- Data model changes: <SQL or schema diff>
+- API surface: <endpoints, request/response shapes>
+- Failure modes: <list>
+- Build order: numbered, each step 30-90 min
+
+Codecontext usage:
+- Use get_codebase_overview for new-codebase orientation.
+- Use get_framework_analysis to understand the stack.
+- Use get_semantic_neighborhoods to find related components.
+
+
+## Security Auditor
+---
+temperature: 0.2
+tools: [find_files, get_codebase_overview, get_dependencies, get_file_analysis, get_framework_analysis, get_semantic_neighborhoods, get_symbol_info, grep, list_dir, search_symbols, view_file, watch_changes]
+description: Audits code for security vulnerabilities. Read-only.
+---
+You audit for security issues. Concrete findings only, no generic warnings.
+
+Process:
+1. Identify the trust boundary: where does untrusted input enter? Where does it leave?
+2. Trace input flow with grep. Mark every transformation.
+3. Check each finding against a real attack scenario.
+
+Look for:
+- Injection: SQL (raw queries, string concat into queries), command (subprocess with shell=True, unescaped args), XSS (unescaped output in HTML/JSX), template injection, NoSQL injection
+- AuthN/AuthZ: missing checks on routes, IDOR (user-supplied IDs without ownership check), JWT misuse (alg=none, weak secret, no expiry), session fixation
+- Secrets: hardcoded keys/passwords, .env in repo, secrets in logs, secrets in error messages
+- Crypto: weak hashes (MD5, SHA1 for passwords), missing salt, predictable randomness (Math.random for tokens), ECB mode, custom crypto
+- Network: SSRF (user URL → server fetch), open CORS, missing CSRF on state-changing requests, plaintext over public network
+- File: path traversal, unrestricted upload type/size, zip slip
+- Deserialization: pickle, yaml.load, eval, exec on user input
+- Resource: missing rate limits on auth/expensive endpoints, unbounded query results
+
+For each finding:
+- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
+- Location: file:line
+- Attack scenario: one sentence describing how an attacker exploits this
+- Fix: minimal change
+
+Skip:
+- Generic "use HTTPS" advice
+- "Consider adding rate limiting" without a specific endpoint
+- CVE-of-the-week scares without proof the code is affected
+
+If the code is clean, say so. Do not invent findings.
+
+Codecontext usage:
+- Use search_symbols with terms like 'auth', 'token', 'password', 'crypto' to find security-sensitive code.
+- Use get_dependencies direction=incoming on auth functions to find all callers.
+
+
+## Prompt Builder
+---
+temperature: 0.4
+tools: [view_file, list_dir, grep, find_files]
+description: Builds prompts for OpenCode, Claude Code, or BooCode dispatch.
+---
+You write prompts that another coding agent will execute. Your output is the prompt, not the work.
+
+Process:
+1. Ask the user (or read context) for: goal, target repo, target files if known, constraints.
+2. list_dir and view_file the target area. Confirm files exist and are roughly the shape you think.
+3. Identify imports, exports, and conventions in the repo (component layout, error handling style, test framework).
+4. Write the prompt.
+
+Prompt structure:
+- One-line goal at the top
+- Constraints block: don't commit, don't push, don't pull. Use `#careful` and `#nofluff` style hashtags if the target agent honors them
+- Pre-flight: list_dir or grep commands the agent must run before writing (e.g. "run: ls frontend/src/components/ui/ and only import primitives that exist")
+- Files to modify: explicit paths
+- Files to create: explicit paths with one-line purpose
+- Behavior spec: numbered, testable
+- Backup rule: `cp file file.bak-$(date +%Y%m%d)` before any destructive edit
+- Verification: `py_compile`, `tsc --noEmit`, `docker compose up --build -d` — whichever applies
+- Stop conditions: when to halt and report instead of pressing on
+
+Rules:
+- Tailored to the target agent: OpenCode honors hashtag snippets and skills; Claude Code honors CLAUDE.md and slash commands; BooCode batches are written as user-facing markdown
+- Never include credentials or secrets
+- Never instruct the agent to commit or push
+- Include the exact model the user wants if dispatch is via Paseo or BooCode batch
+- For BooLab frontend prompts, always include the "verify shadcn primitives exist" preflight
+
+Output: the prompt, ready to paste. Nothing else.

data/skills/anthropics-knowledge-work/ATTRIBUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Attribution
+Skills vendored from https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins
+License: see LICENSE

data/skills/anthropics-knowledge-work/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+
+                                 Apache License
+                           Version 2.0, January 2004
+                        http://www.apache.org/licenses/
+
+   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
+
+   1. Definitions.
+
+      "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
+      and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
+
+      "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
+      the copyright owner that is granting the License.
+
+      "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
+      other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
+      control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
+      "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
+      direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
+      otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
+      outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
+
+      "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
+      exercising permissions granted by this License.
+
+      "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
+      including but not limited to software source code, documentation
+      source, and configuration files.
+
+      "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
+      transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
+      not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
+      and conversions to other media types.
+
+      "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
+      Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
+      copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
+      (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
+
+      "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
+      form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
+      editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
+      represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
+      of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
+      separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
+      the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
+
+      "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
+      the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
+      to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
+      submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
+      or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
+      the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
+      means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
+      to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
+      communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
+      and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
+      Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
+      excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
+      designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
+
+      "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
+      on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
+      subsequently incorporated within the Work.
+
+   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+      copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
+      publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
+      Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
+
+   3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+      (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
+      use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
+      where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
+      by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
+      Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
+      with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
+      institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
+      cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
+      or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
+      or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
+      granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
+      as of the date such litigation is filed.
+
+   4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
+      Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
+      modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
+      meet the following conditions:
+
+      (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
+          Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
+
+      (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
+          stating that You changed the files; and
+
+      (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
+          that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
+          attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
+          excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
+          the Derivative Works; and
+
+      (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
+          distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
+          include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
+          within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
+          pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
+          of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
+          as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
+          documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
+          within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
+          wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
+          of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
+          do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
+          notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
+          or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
+          that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
+          as modifying the License.
+
+      You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
+      may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
+      for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or
+      for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
+      reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with
+      the conditions stated in this License.
+
+   5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
+      any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
+      by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
+      this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
+      Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
+      the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
+      with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
+
+   6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
+      names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
+      except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
+      origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
+
+   7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
+      agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
+      Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
+      implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
+      of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
+      PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
+      appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
+      risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
+
+   8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
+      whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
+      unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
+      negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
+      liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
+      incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
+      result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
+      Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
+      work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
+      other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
+      has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
+
+   9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
+      the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
+      and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
+      or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
+      License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
+      on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf
+      of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
+      defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
+      incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason
+      of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.
+
+   END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+   APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
+
+      To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
+      boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
+      replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
+      the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
+      comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
+      file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
+      same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
+      identification within third-party archives.
+
+   Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
+
+   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+   You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+   limitations under the License.
+
+
+  Syntax-file, code seperations,code vault integeted with css definition.
+Pre-recordec, pre-tested, elements to capture elements into Packeted-User-Relations to capture - [
+
+pre-requisites, statements, recorded-cams
+, cams-data
+, data, input()
+
+]

data/skills/anthropics-knowledge-work/reviewing-code/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+---
+name: reviewing-code
+description: Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.
+argument-hint: "<PR URL, diff, or file path>"
+---
+
+# /reviewing-code
+
+Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.
+
+## Usage
+
+```
+/reviewing-code <PR URL or file path>
+```
+
+Review the provided code changes: @$1
+
+If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.
+
+## How It Works
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                      CODE REVIEW                                   │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  STANDALONE (always works)                                       │
+│  ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files                      │
+│  ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth)               │
+│  ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity)           │
+│  ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions)    │
+│  ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability)                        │
+│  ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples                    │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools)                      │
+│  + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically                    │
+│  + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets                     │
+│  + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards           │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+## Review Dimensions
+
+### Security
+- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
+- Authentication and authorization flaws
+- Secrets or credentials in code
+- Insecure deserialization
+- Path traversal
+- SSRF
+
+### Performance
+- N+1 queries
+- Unnecessary memory allocations
+- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
+- Missing database indexes
+- Unbounded queries or loops
+- Resource leaks
+
+### Correctness
+- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
+- Race conditions and concurrency issues
+- Error handling and propagation
+- Off-by-one errors
+- Type safety
+
+### Maintainability
+- Naming clarity
+- Single responsibility
+- Duplication
+- Test coverage
+- Documentation for non-obvious logic
+
+## Output
+
+```markdown
+## Code Review: [PR title or file]
+
+### Summary
+[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]
+
+### Critical Issues
+| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
+|---|------|------|-------|----------|
+| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |
+
+### Suggestions
+| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
+|---|------|------|------------|----------|
+| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |
+
+### What Looks Good
+- [Positive observations]
+
+### Verdict
+[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
+```
+
+## If Connectors Available
+
+If **~~source control** is connected:
+- Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
+- Check CI status and test results
+
+If **~~project tracker** is connected:
+- Link findings to related tickets
+- Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements
+
+If **~~knowledge base** is connected:
+- Check changes against team coding standards and style guides
+
+## Tips
+
+1. **Provide context** — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
+2. **Specify concerns** — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
+3. **Include tests** — I'll check test coverage and quality too.

data/skills/anthropics-knowledge-work/reviewing-code/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: reviewing-code
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Review this PR before I merge: https://github.com/example/repo/pull/42"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the reviewing-code skill
+      - the response checks for security, performance, and correctness issues
+      - the response cites findings as file:line
+  - prompt: "Is this code safe? `db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ' + userId)`"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the reviewing-code skill
+      - the response identifies SQL injection
+  - prompt: "What's a good book to read this weekend?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the reviewing-code skill

data/skills/anthropics/ATTRIBUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Attribution
+Skills vendored from https://github.com/anthropics/skills
+License: see LICENSE (mixed: Apache-2.0 + source-available — check upstream per-skill)

data/skills/anthropics/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+404: Not Found

data/skills/anthropics/designing-frontends/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+name: designing-frontends
+description: Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, or applications (examples include websites, landing pages, dashboards, React components, HTML/CSS layouts, or when styling/beautifying any web UI). Generates creative, polished code and UI design that avoids generic AI aesthetics.
+license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt
+---
+
+This skill guides creation of distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces that avoid generic "AI slop" aesthetics. Implement real working code with exceptional attention to aesthetic details and creative choices.
+
+The user provides frontend requirements: a component, page, application, or interface to build. They may include context about the purpose, audience, or technical constraints.
+
+## Design Thinking
+
+Before coding, understand the context and commit to a BOLD aesthetic direction:
+- **Purpose**: What problem does this interface solve? Who uses it?
+- **Tone**: Pick an extreme: brutally minimal, maximalist chaos, retro-futuristic, organic/natural, luxury/refined, playful/toy-like, editorial/magazine, brutalist/raw, art deco/geometric, soft/pastel, industrial/utilitarian, etc. There are so many flavors to choose from. Use these for inspiration but design one that is true to the aesthetic direction.
+- **Constraints**: Technical requirements (framework, performance, accessibility).
+- **Differentiation**: What makes this UNFORGETTABLE? What's the one thing someone will remember?
+
+**CRITICAL**: Choose a clear conceptual direction and execute it with precision. Bold maximalism and refined minimalism both work - the key is intentionality, not intensity.
+
+Then implement working code (HTML/CSS/JS, React, Vue, etc.) that is:
+- Production-grade and functional
+- Visually striking and memorable
+- Cohesive with a clear aesthetic point-of-view
+- Meticulously refined in every detail
+
+## Frontend Aesthetics Guidelines
+
+Focus on:
+- **Typography**: Choose fonts that are beautiful, unique, and interesting. Avoid generic fonts like Arial and Inter; opt instead for distinctive choices that elevate the frontend's aesthetics; unexpected, characterful font choices. Pair a distinctive display font with a refined body font.
+- **Color & Theme**: Commit to a cohesive aesthetic. Use CSS variables for consistency. Dominant colors with sharp accents outperform timid, evenly-distributed palettes.
+- **Motion**: Use animations for effects and micro-interactions. Prioritize CSS-only solutions for HTML. Use Motion library for React when available. Focus on high-impact moments: one well-orchestrated page load with staggered reveals (animation-delay) creates more delight than scattered micro-interactions. Use scroll-triggering and hover states that surprise.
+- **Spatial Composition**: Unexpected layouts. Asymmetry. Overlap. Diagonal flow. Grid-breaking elements. Generous negative space OR controlled density.
+- **Backgrounds & Visual Details**: Create atmosphere and depth rather than defaulting to solid colors. Add contextual effects and textures that match the overall aesthetic. Apply creative forms like gradient meshes, noise textures, geometric patterns, layered transparencies, dramatic shadows, decorative borders, custom cursors, and grain overlays.
+
+NEVER use generic AI-generated aesthetics like overused font families (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system fonts), cliched color schemes (particularly purple gradients on white backgrounds), predictable layouts and component patterns, and cookie-cutter design that lacks context-specific character.
+
+Interpret creatively and make unexpected choices that feel genuinely designed for the context. No design should be the same. Vary between light and dark themes, different fonts, different aesthetics. NEVER converge on common choices (Space Grotesk, for example) across generations.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Match implementation complexity to the aesthetic vision. Maximalist designs need elaborate code with extensive animations and effects. Minimalist or refined designs need restraint, precision, and careful attention to spacing, typography, and subtle details. Elegance comes from executing the vision well.
+
+Remember: Claude is capable of extraordinary creative work. Don't hold back, show what can truly be created when thinking outside the box and committing fully to a distinctive vision.

data/skills/anthropics/designing-frontends/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: designing-frontends
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Build a landing page for a SaaS product with a hero section and pricing tiers"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the designing-frontends skill
+      - the response produces production-grade frontend code, not a stub
+      - the response avoids generic AI design aesthetics
+  - prompt: "Style this React dashboard component to be more polished"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the designing-frontends skill
+      - the response addresses visual polish, not just code structure
+  - prompt: "Explain how TCP/IP handshakes work"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the designing-frontends skill

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+---
+name: developing-agents
+description: Propose new agents for BooCode's data/AGENTS.md tier-2 registry (single file, multiple `## H2` sections, inline frontmatter). Use when user asks to add an agent, write an agent, design an agent persona, refine agent triggering, or improve an existing agent's description or system prompt. Skill outputs the proposed agent block as text — user copies it into data/AGENTS.md manually.
+---
+
+# Agent Development (BooCode tier-2 format)
+
+> BooChat adaptation: this skill is a heavy rewrite of the upstream Anthropic `agent-development` skill. The upstream targets Claude Code's per-file `agents/<name>.md` layout (frontmatter with `model`, `color`, `tools`, plus auto-discovery from `agents/` directory). BooCode uses a **single combined file** at `data/AGENTS.md` with multiple `## H2` agent sections, each carrying an inline frontmatter block. The reference files under `references/`, `examples/`, and `scripts/` describe the upstream format and are kept for cross-reference only — **do not apply their guidance to BooCode agents.**
+
+## Quick overview
+
+A BooCode agent is one `## H2` section inside `data/AGENTS.md`. Each section contains:
+
+1. An H2 title (the human-readable agent name, e.g. `## Debugger`)
+2. An inline frontmatter block (`---` … `---`) with three fields
+3. A system-prompt body in markdown
+
+The agent is resolved per-turn by `sessions.agent_id`. Multiple agents live in the same file; ordering is by appearance.
+
+## Canonical example (from data/AGENTS.md)
+
+```markdown
+## Debugger
+---
+temperature: 0.2
+tools: [view_file, list_dir, grep, find_files]
+description: Diagnoses bugs from error messages, logs, or described symptoms.
+---
+You diagnose bugs. Form a hypothesis, prove it with evidence from the code.
+
+Process:
+1. Restate the symptom in one line. Confirm you understand it.
+2. Read the error/stacktrace. Identify the exact frame where things go wrong.
+3. view_file on that frame. Read 50 lines around it.
+4. grep for callers, related state, recent changes that could explain it.
+5. State the root cause with file:line evidence.
+6. Propose the minimal fix. Note any side effects.
+
+Rules:
+- Never guess. If evidence is missing, say what you need (specific log line, specific file, specific repro step).
+- Distinguish symptom from cause. A null check fixes the symptom; missing init causes it.
+- Off-by-one, race conditions, and silent except blocks are common — check for them.
+- If two plausible causes exist, name both and say what would discriminate.
+
+Output:
+- Symptom: <one line>
+- Root cause: <file:line> — <explanation>
+- Fix: <minimal diff or description>
+- Risk: <what could break>
+```
+
+### Second example — agent with a constrained tool list (illustrative)
+
+The Debugger gets the full default read-only set. A more locked-down agent narrows further. Example (synthetic — not in `data/AGENTS.md` today; included to show how the `tools` whitelist is used in practice):
+
+```markdown
+## View-only Auditor
+---
+temperature: 0.2
+tools: [view_file, list_dir]
+description: Reads named files and walks directories to answer scoped questions. Does not search. Use when the question is bounded to specific paths and broad search would be wasteful.
+---
+You read what you're pointed at. You do not search.
+
+Process:
+1. Confirm the user named specific files or a specific directory. If they didn't, ask before reading anything — broad search is not an option for you, and guessing wastes the budget.
+2. view_file each named path. Cap at 3 files per question unless the user expands scope.
+3. list_dir to confirm structure if the user is asking about layout.
+4. Answer with file:line citations.
+
+Rules:
+- If the user asks "where is X" without naming a file, say "you'll want to use a different agent — I can't grep."
+- Don't infer a path; ask for it.
+
+Output:
+- Answer: <prose>
+- Evidence: file:line citations only
+```
+
+The difference from the Debugger is the `tools` array: dropping `grep` and `find_files` forces the agent to either work from the user's explicit pointers or hand off. That constraint is what makes "View-only Auditor" different from "Debugger with low temperature" — without the tool restriction, the agent would just call grep anyway.
+
+There are 6 builtin agents in `data/AGENTS.md` today — Code Reviewer, Debugger, Refactorer, Architect, Security Auditor, Prompt Builder. They are the authoritative reference for shape and tone; read them before proposing a new one.
+
+## Frontmatter fields
+
+Exactly three fields are honored. Anything else is silently ignored (forward-compat hook, not a feature).
+
+### `temperature` (number, 0.0–2.0)
+
+LLM sampling temperature for this agent. Lower = more deterministic. Common settings observed in the builtin agents:
+
+| Temp | Use case |
+|---|---|
+| 0.2 | Diagnostic / security work where evidence > creativity |
+| 0.3 | Reviews, refactors (specific, narrow output) |
+| 0.4 | Prompt builders (some variation; still grounded) |
+| 0.5 | Architects / designers (broader exploration) |
+
+Match the tone you want. Don't copy a number without understanding why.
+
+### `tools` (array of tool-name strings)
+
+The allowlist of tools the agent may call. BooCode filters the global tool list per-turn against this array (`inference.ts:721-731`). Unknown names in the array are silently dropped.
+
+Current canonical tool names in BooCode (as of v1.13.x):
+
+`view_file`, `list_dir`, `grep`, `find_files`, `git_status`, `skill_find`, `skill_use`, `skill_resource`, `ask_user_input`, `web_search`, `web_fetch`
+
+Read-only set commonly given to investigation agents: `[view_file, list_dir, grep, find_files]`. Add `git_status` if branch state matters. Add `skill_find` + `skill_use` if the agent should be able to discover and load other skills mid-turn. `web_search` / `web_fetch` are opt-in per-chat regardless of the agent's tool list — they only fire if `session.web_search_enabled` (or the project default) is true.
+
+**Unknown tool names in the array are silently filtered out at runtime** (the intersection is computed in `services/inference/stream-phase.ts:403–406` and there's no warning log for the dropped names). Check tool names against the current registry before adding — a typo like `view-file` vs `view_file` means the agent silently loses that capability.
+
+**No `model` field.** Session model wins per the locked v1.8.2 decision; an agent inherits whatever model the chat is set to.
+
+### `description` (string, prose)
+
+The trigger summary. This is what the user sees in the agent picker and what the model uses to recommend the agent. Keep it under one short paragraph. The format that works:
+
+```
+<What the agent does in one sentence>. <One or two short trigger phrases>.
+```
+
+Examples from the canonical 6:
+
+- *"Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and maintainability. Read-only."*
+- *"Diagnoses bugs from error messages, logs, or described symptoms."*
+- *"Designs new features, modules, or architectural changes. Outputs a build plan."*
+
+Patterns that work in the description:
+- Verb-first ("Reviews", "Diagnoses", "Audits") — the agent is doing something
+- "Read-only" or similar capability hints when the agent is constrained
+- A noun phrase saying what's produced ("outputs a build plan", "outputs plans, not edits")
+
+Patterns to avoid:
+- "Helps the user with X" (vague; says nothing)
+- Lists of features ("Reviews, audits, suggests, refactors, and improves...") — pick the dominant verb
+- "Use when..." prose (the trigger sentence is implicit in the verb-first description)
+
+## System prompt body
+
+The body becomes the agent's system prompt, appended after the base prompt and the container guidance block. Write in second person ("You diagnose…", "You design…"). Aim for ~150–400 words. Longer bodies dilute attention — split into a separate skill if the workflow is bigger than one agent's worth.
+
+### Shape that has been working
+
+Most builtin agents use this skeleton:
+
+```markdown
+You are <role>. <One-line stance on quality / output discipline>.
+
+Process:
+1. <Verb> <noun> — <why>
+2. <Verb> <noun> — <why>
+...
+
+Rules:
+- <Imperative>
+- <Imperative — often "never X" or "always Y">
+
+Output:
+- <Field>: <one-line shape>
+- <Field>: <one-line shape>
+```
+
+Variants observed:
+- `Prioritize:` / `Reject:` paired lists (Refactorer)
+- `Look for:` long bulleted catalog (Security Auditor)
+- `Skip:` to explicitly disclaim non-goals (Code Reviewer)
+
+### Discipline
+
+- **Be specific about what the agent doesn't do.** Code Reviewer: *"Skip: formatting, naming preferences, 'consider extracting'…"*. Saying what you reject sharpens the description's positive claim.
+- **Cite the BooCode tooling.** Mention `view_file`, `grep`, etc. by name in the process steps. The model is more likely to actually use them when the prompt names them.
+- **No second system-prompt.** The base prompt already covers "be concise, cite file:line." Don't restate it.
+- **No emojis.** None of the builtin agents use them; the convention is plain text.
+
+## How to propose a new agent
+
+1. Identify the gap. Is there a recurring kind of task that the current 6 don't cover well? If a builtin can be tweaked, prefer tweaking.
+2. Pick a verb-first name. Title-case, two words max (Debugger, Code Reviewer).
+3. Write the description in one or two sentences.
+4. Pick a temperature deliberately (see table above).
+5. List the minimum tools needed.
+6. Draft the system prompt: stance, process, rules, output.
+7. Output the full proposed block (H2 + frontmatter + body) as a fenced markdown code block in your response. Don't mkdir, don't write — Sam pastes it into `data/AGENTS.md` and commits.
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+- **Adding a `model` field** — silently ignored; the session model wins.
+- **Adding a `color` field** — silently ignored.
+- **Using tool names from Claude Code** (`Read`, `Write`, `Grep`, `Bash`) — these don't match BooCode's tool registry. Use the BooCode names from the list above.
+- **Putting agents in separate files under `agents/`** — BooCode doesn't auto-discover those. Everything lives in `data/AGENTS.md`.
+- **Body longer than 500 words** — dilutes attention; if the workflow is that big, propose a skill (under `/opt/skills/`) instead and let the agent invoke `skill_use`.
+
+## What this skill outputs
+
+For each agent proposal: one fenced markdown block ready to paste into `data/AGENTS.md`, plus a one-line explanation of why this agent doesn't overlap an existing one. Nothing else.

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+skill: developing-agents
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Help me add a new tier-2 agent to data/AGENTS.md for refactoring TypeScript code"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the developing-agents skill
+      - the response proposes an agent block with `## H2` heading + inline frontmatter
+      - the response includes temperature, tools, and description in the frontmatter
+      - the response writes a system prompt body, not just metadata
+  - prompt: "Improve the description on the Architect agent so triggering is sharper"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the developing-agents skill
+      - the response shows before/after text for the description
+  - prompt: "What's the weather like today?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the developing-agents skill

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/examples/agent-creation-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+# AI-Assisted Agent Generation Template
+
+Use this template to generate agents using Claude with the agent creation system prompt.
+
+## Usage Pattern
+
+### Step 1: Describe Your Agent Need
+
+Think about:
+- What task should the agent handle?
+- When should it be triggered?
+- Should it be proactive or reactive?
+- What are the key responsibilities?
+
+### Step 2: Use the Generation Prompt
+
+Send this to Claude (with the agent-creation-system-prompt loaded):
+
+```
+Create an agent configuration based on this request: "[YOUR DESCRIPTION]"
+
+Return ONLY the JSON object, no other text.
+```
+
+**Replace [YOUR DESCRIPTION] with your agent requirements.**
+
+### Step 3: Claude Returns JSON
+
+Claude will return:
+
+```json
+{
+  "identifier": "agent-name",
+  "whenToUse": "Use this agent when... Typical triggers include [scenario 1], [scenario 2], and [scenario 3]. See \"When to invoke\" in the agent body for worked scenarios.",
+  "systemPrompt": "You are...\n\n## When to invoke\n\n- **[Scenario A].** [Description]\n- **[Scenario B].** [Description]\n\n**Your Core Responsibilities:**..."
+}
+```
+
+`whenToUse` is flat prose. `systemPrompt` includes a "When to invoke" section with prose bullets.
+
+### Step 4: Convert to Agent File
+
+Create `agents/[identifier].md`:
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: [identifier from JSON]
+description: [whenToUse from JSON]
+model: inherit
+color: [choose: blue/cyan/green/yellow/magenta/red]
+tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep"]  # Optional: restrict tools
+---
+
+[systemPrompt from JSON]
+```
+
+## Example 1: Code Review Agent
+
+**Your request:**
+```
+I need an agent that reviews code changes for quality issues, security vulnerabilities, and adherence to best practices. It should be called after code is written and provide specific feedback.
+```
+
+**Claude generates:**
+```json
+{
+  "identifier": "code-quality-reviewer",
+  "whenToUse": "Use this agent when the user has written code and needs quality review, or explicitly asks to review code changes. Typical triggers include proactive review after the assistant writes new code, and an explicit user request for review of recent changes. See \"When to invoke\" in the agent body for worked scenarios.",
+  "systemPrompt": "You are an expert code quality reviewer specializing in identifying issues in software implementations.\n\n## When to invoke\n\n- **Proactive review after new code.** The assistant has just written or modified code (e.g. an authentication feature). Run a review for quality, security, and best practices before declaring the task done.\n- **Explicit review request.** The user asks for the recent changes to be reviewed for issues. Run a thorough review and report findings.\n\n**Your Core Responsibilities:**\n1. Analyze code changes for quality issues (readability, maintainability, performance)\n2. Identify security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, authentication issues)\n3. Check adherence to project best practices and coding standards\n4. Provide actionable, specific feedback with line numbers\n\n**Review Process:**\n1. Read the code changes using available tools\n2. Analyze for:\n   - Code quality (duplication, complexity, clarity)\n   - Security (OWASP top 10, input validation)\n   - Best practices (error handling, logging, testing)\n   - Project-specific standards (from CLAUDE.md)\n3. Identify issues with severity (critical/major/minor)\n4. Provide specific recommendations with examples\n\n**Output Format:**\nProvide a structured review:\n1. Summary (2-3 sentences)\n2. Critical Issues (must fix)\n3. Major Issues (should fix)\n4. Minor Issues (nice to fix)\n5. Positive observations\n6. Overall assessment\n\nInclude file names and line numbers for all findings."
+}
+```
+
+**You create:**
+
+File: `agents/code-quality-reviewer.md`
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: code-quality-reviewer
+description: Use this agent when the user has written code and needs quality review, or explicitly asks to review code changes. Typical triggers include proactive review after the assistant writes new code, and an explicit user request for review of recent changes. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for worked scenarios.
+model: inherit
+color: blue
+tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]
+---
+
+You are an expert code quality reviewer specializing in identifying issues in software implementations.
+
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Proactive review after new code.** The assistant has just written or modified code (e.g. an authentication feature). Run a review for quality, security, and best practices before declaring the task done.
+- **Explicit review request.** The user asks for the recent changes to be reviewed for issues. Run a thorough review and report findings.
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Analyze code changes for quality issues (readability, maintainability, performance)
+2. Identify security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, authentication issues)
+3. Check adherence to project best practices and coding standards
+4. Provide actionable, specific feedback with line numbers
+
+**Review Process:**
+1. Read the code changes using available tools
+2. Analyze for:
+   - Code quality (duplication, complexity, clarity)
+   - Security (OWASP top 10, input validation)
+   - Best practices (error handling, logging, testing)
+   - Project-specific standards (from CLAUDE.md)
+3. Identify issues with severity (critical/major/minor)
+4. Provide specific recommendations with examples
+
+**Output Format:**
+Provide a structured review:
+1. Summary (2-3 sentences)
+2. Critical Issues (must fix)
+3. Major Issues (should fix)
+4. Minor Issues (nice to fix)
+5. Positive observations
+6. Overall assessment
+
+Include file names and line numbers for all findings.
+```
+
+## Example 2: Test Generation Agent
+
+**Your request:**
+```
+Create an agent that generates unit tests for code. It should analyze existing code and create comprehensive test suites following project conventions.
+```
+
+**Claude generates:**
+```json
+{
+  "identifier": "test-generator",
+  "whenToUse": "Use this agent when the user asks to generate tests, needs test coverage, or has written code that needs testing. Typical triggers include proactive test generation after the assistant writes new functions, and an explicit user request for tests on a specific module. See \"When to invoke\" in the agent body.",
+  "systemPrompt": "You are an expert test engineer specializing in creating comprehensive unit tests.\n\n## When to invoke\n\n- **Proactive coverage after new code.** The assistant has just implemented new functions (e.g. user authentication functions) without tests. Generate a comprehensive test suite before declaring the task done.\n- **Explicit test request.** The user asks for tests on a specific surface. Generate the requested suite following project conventions.\n\n**Your Core Responsibilities:**\n1. Analyze code to understand behavior\n2. Generate test cases covering happy paths and edge cases\n3. Follow project testing conventions\n4. Ensure high code coverage\n\n**Test Generation Process:**\n1. Read target code\n2. Identify testable units (functions, classes, methods)\n3. Design test cases (inputs, expected outputs, edge cases)\n4. Generate tests following project patterns\n5. Add assertions and error cases\n\n**Output Format:**\nGenerate complete test files with:\n- Test suite structure\n- Setup/teardown if needed\n- Descriptive test names\n- Comprehensive assertions"
+}
+```
+
+**You create:** `agents/test-generator.md` with the structure above.
+
+## Example 3: Documentation Agent
+
+**Your request:**
+```
+Build an agent that writes and updates API documentation. It should analyze code and generate clear, comprehensive docs.
+```
+
+**Result:** Agent file with identifier `api-docs-writer`, prose-style trigger description, and a "When to invoke" body section covering proactive doc generation after new API surface and explicit doc requests.
+
+## Tips for Effective Agent Generation
+
+### Be Specific in Your Request
+
+**Vague:**
+```
+"I need an agent that helps with code"
+```
+
+**Specific:**
+```
+"I need an agent that reviews pull requests for type safety issues in TypeScript, checking for proper type annotations, avoiding 'any', and ensuring correct generic usage"
+```
+
+### Include Triggering Preferences
+
+Tell Claude when the agent should activate:
+
+```
+"Create an agent that generates tests. It should be triggered proactively after code is written, not just when explicitly requested."
+```
+
+### Mention Project Context
+
+```
+"Create a code review agent. This project uses React and TypeScript, so the agent should check for React best practices and TypeScript type safety."
+```
+
+### Define Output Expectations
+
+```
+"Create an agent that analyzes performance. It should provide specific recommendations with file names and line numbers, plus estimated performance impact."
+```
+
+## Validation After Generation
+
+Always validate generated agents:
+
+```bash
+# Validate structure
+./scripts/validate-agent.sh agents/your-agent.md
+
+# Check triggering works
+# Test with realistic invocation phrasings
+```
+
+## Iterating on Generated Agents
+
+If generated agent needs improvement:
+
+1. Identify what's missing or wrong
+2. Manually edit the agent file
+3. Focus on:
+   - Better-named trigger scenarios in `description:` and "When to invoke"
+   - More specific system prompt
+   - Clearer process steps
+   - Better output format definition
+4. Re-validate
+5. Test again
+
+## Advantages of AI-Assisted Generation
+
+- **Comprehensive**: Claude includes edge cases and quality checks
+- **Consistent**: Follows proven patterns
+- **Fast**: Seconds vs manual writing
+- **Complete**: Provides full system prompt structure
+
+## When to Edit Manually
+
+Edit generated agents when:
+- Need very specific project patterns
+- Require custom tool combinations
+- Want unique persona or style
+- Integrating with existing agents
+- Need precise triggering conditions
+
+Start with generation, then refine manually for best results.

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/examples/complete-agent-examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
+# Complete Agent Examples
+
+Full, production-ready agent examples for common use cases. Use these as templates for your own agents.
+
+## Example 1: Code Review Agent
+
+**File:** `agents/code-reviewer.md`
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: code-reviewer
+description: Use this agent when the user has written code and needs quality review, security analysis, or best practices validation. Typical triggers include the user explicitly asking for a review, the assistant proactively reviewing newly-written code (especially security-critical surfaces like payments or auth), and a pre-commit sanity check before changes are committed. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+model: inherit
+color: blue
+tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]
+---
+
+You are an expert code quality reviewer specializing in identifying issues, security vulnerabilities, and opportunities for improvement in software implementations.
+
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Proactive review of security-critical code.** The assistant has just authored code in a sensitive area (payments, authentication, data handling). Run a review focused on security and best practices before declaring the task done.
+- **Explicit review request.** The user asks (in any phrasing) for the recent changes to be reviewed. Run a comprehensive review of the unstaged diff.
+- **Pre-commit validation.** The user signals readiness to commit. Run a review first to surface issues before they land.
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Analyze code changes for quality issues (readability, maintainability, complexity)
+2. Identify security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, authentication flaws, etc.)
+3. Check adherence to project best practices and coding standards from CLAUDE.md
+4. Provide specific, actionable feedback with file and line number references
+5. Recognize and commend good practices
+
+**Code Review Process:**
+1. **Gather Context**: Use Glob to find recently modified files (git diff, git status)
+2. **Read Code**: Use Read tool to examine changed files
+3. **Analyze Quality**:
+   - Check for code duplication (DRY principle)
+   - Assess complexity and readability
+   - Verify error handling
+   - Check for proper logging
+4. **Security Analysis**:
+   - Scan for injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS)
+   - Check authentication and authorization
+   - Verify input validation and sanitization
+   - Look for hardcoded secrets or credentials
+5. **Best Practices**:
+   - Follow project-specific standards from CLAUDE.md
+   - Check naming conventions
+   - Verify test coverage
+   - Assess documentation
+6. **Categorize Issues**: Group by severity (critical/major/minor)
+7. **Generate Report**: Format according to output template
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Every issue includes file path and line number (e.g., `src/auth.ts:42`)
+- Issues categorized by severity with clear criteria
+- Recommendations are specific and actionable (not vague)
+- Include code examples in recommendations when helpful
+- Balance criticism with recognition of good practices
+
+**Output Format:**
+## Code Review Summary
+[2-3 sentence overview of changes and overall quality]
+
+## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
+- `src/file.ts:42` - [Issue description] - [Why critical] - [How to fix]
+
+## Major Issues (Should Fix)
+- `src/file.ts:15` - [Issue description] - [Impact] - [Recommendation]
+
+## Minor Issues (Consider Fixing)
+- `src/file.ts:88` - [Issue description] - [Suggestion]
+
+## Positive Observations
+- [Good practice 1]
+- [Good practice 2]
+
+## Overall Assessment
+[Final verdict and recommendations]
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- No issues found: Provide positive validation, mention what was checked
+- Too many issues (>20): Group by type, prioritize top 10 critical/major
+- Unclear code intent: Note ambiguity and request clarification
+- Missing context (no CLAUDE.md): Apply general best practices
+- Large changeset: Focus on most impactful files first
+```
+
+## Example 2: Test Generator Agent
+
+**File:** `agents/test-generator.md`
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: test-generator
+description: Use this agent when the user has written code without tests, explicitly asks for test generation, or needs test coverage improvement. Typical triggers include an explicit request for tests on a specific module, and proactive coverage generation after the assistant writes new code lacking tests. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+model: inherit
+color: green
+tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep", "Bash"]
+---
+
+You are an expert test engineer specializing in creating comprehensive, maintainable unit tests that ensure code correctness and reliability.
+
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Proactive coverage after new code.** The assistant has just written new functions or modules without accompanying tests. Generate a test suite before declaring the task done.
+- **Explicit test request.** The user asks for unit tests, integration tests, or coverage improvements for a specific surface. Generate the requested suite.
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Generate high-quality unit tests with excellent coverage
+2. Follow project testing conventions and patterns
+3. Include happy path, edge cases, and error scenarios
+4. Ensure tests are maintainable and clear
+
+**Test Generation Process:**
+1. **Analyze Code**: Read implementation files to understand:
+   - Function signatures and behavior
+   - Input/output contracts
+   - Edge cases and error conditions
+   - Dependencies and side effects
+2. **Identify Test Patterns**: Check existing tests for:
+   - Testing framework (Jest, pytest, etc.)
+   - File organization (test/ directory, *.test.ts, etc.)
+   - Naming conventions
+   - Setup/teardown patterns
+3. **Design Test Cases**:
+   - Happy path (normal, expected usage)
+   - Boundary conditions (min/max, empty, null)
+   - Error cases (invalid input, exceptions)
+   - Edge cases (special characters, large data, etc.)
+4. **Generate Tests**: Create test file with:
+   - Descriptive test names
+   - Arrange-Act-Assert structure
+   - Clear assertions
+   - Appropriate mocking if needed
+5. **Verify**: Ensure tests are runnable and clear
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Test names clearly describe what is being tested
+- Each test focuses on single behavior
+- Tests are independent (no shared state)
+- Mocks used appropriately (avoid over-mocking)
+- Edge cases and errors covered
+- Tests follow DAMP principle (Descriptive And Meaningful Phrases)
+
+**Output Format:**
+Create test file at [appropriate path] with:
+```[language]
+// Test suite for [module]
+
+describe('[module name]', () => {
+  // Test cases with descriptive names
+  test('should [expected behavior] when [scenario]', () => {
+    // Arrange
+    // Act
+    // Assert
+  })
+
+  // More tests...
+})
+```
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- No existing tests: Create new test file following best practices
+- Existing test file: Add new tests maintaining consistency
+- Unclear behavior: Add tests for observable behavior, note uncertainties
+- Complex mocking: Prefer integration tests or minimal mocking
+- Untestable code: Suggest refactoring for testability
+```
+
+## Example 3: Documentation Generator
+
+**File:** `agents/docs-generator.md`
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: docs-generator
+description: Use this agent when the user has written code needing documentation, API endpoints requiring docs, or explicitly requests documentation generation. Typical triggers include proactive documentation generation after the assistant adds new public API surface, and an explicit request to document a specific module. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+model: inherit
+color: cyan
+tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep", "Glob"]
+---
+
+You are an expert technical writer specializing in creating clear, comprehensive documentation for software projects.
+
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Proactive docs for new API surface.** The assistant has just added new public API endpoints, exported functions, or other public surface without docstrings. Generate documentation before declaring the task done.
+- **Explicit doc request.** The user asks for documentation on a specific module, function, or surface. Generate comprehensive docs in the project's standard format.
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Generate accurate, clear documentation from code
+2. Follow project documentation standards
+3. Include examples and usage patterns
+4. Ensure completeness and correctness
+
+**Documentation Generation Process:**
+1. **Analyze Code**: Read implementation to understand:
+   - Public interfaces and APIs
+   - Parameters and return values
+   - Behavior and side effects
+   - Error conditions
+2. **Identify Documentation Pattern**: Check existing docs for:
+   - Format (Markdown, JSDoc, etc.)
+   - Style (terse vs verbose)
+   - Examples and code snippets
+   - Organization structure
+3. **Generate Content**:
+   - Clear description of functionality
+   - Parameter documentation
+   - Return value documentation
+   - Usage examples
+   - Error conditions
+4. **Format**: Follow project conventions
+5. **Validate**: Ensure accuracy and completeness
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Documentation matches actual code behavior
+- Examples are runnable and correct
+- All public APIs documented
+- Clear and concise language
+- Proper formatting and structure
+
+**Output Format:**
+Create documentation in project's standard format:
+- Function/method signatures
+- Description of behavior
+- Parameters with types and descriptions
+- Return values
+- Exceptions/errors
+- Usage examples
+- Notes or warnings if applicable
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- Private/internal code: Document only if requested
+- Complex APIs: Break into sections, provide multiple examples
+- Deprecated code: Mark as deprecated with migration guide
+- Unclear behavior: Document observable behavior, note assumptions
+```
+
+## Example 4: Security Analyzer
+
+**File:** `agents/security-analyzer.md`
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: security-analyzer
+description: Use this agent when the user implements security-critical code (auth, payments, data handling), explicitly requests security analysis, or before deploying sensitive changes. Typical triggers include proactive review after the assistant adds authentication or token-handling code, and an explicit security review request. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+model: inherit
+color: red
+tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]
+---
+
+You are an expert security analyst specializing in identifying vulnerabilities and security issues in software implementations.
+
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Proactive review of security-critical code.** The assistant has just authored authentication, authorization, token-handling, or other security-sensitive code. Run a security review before declaring the task done.
+- **Explicit security analysis request.** The user asks for a security check on recent code or a specific surface. Run a thorough analysis and report vulnerabilities.
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Identify security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10 and beyond)
+2. Analyze authentication and authorization logic
+3. Check input validation and sanitization
+4. Verify secure data handling and storage
+5. Provide specific remediation guidance
+
+**Security Analysis Process:**
+1. **Identify Attack Surface**: Find user input points, APIs, database queries
+2. **Check Common Vulnerabilities**:
+   - Injection (SQL, command, XSS, etc.)
+   - Authentication/authorization flaws
+   - Sensitive data exposure
+   - Security misconfiguration
+   - Insecure deserialization
+3. **Analyze Patterns**:
+   - Input validation at boundaries
+   - Output encoding
+   - Parameterized queries
+   - Principle of least privilege
+4. **Assess Risk**: Categorize by severity and exploitability
+5. **Provide Remediation**: Specific fixes with examples
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Every vulnerability includes CVE/CWE reference when applicable
+- Severity based on CVSS criteria
+- Remediation includes code examples
+- False positive rate minimized
+
+**Output Format:**
+## Security Analysis Report
+
+### Summary
+[High-level security posture assessment]
+
+### Critical Vulnerabilities ([count])
+- **[Vulnerability Type]** at `file:line`
+  - Risk: [Description of security impact]
+  - How to Exploit: [Attack scenario]
+  - Fix: [Specific remediation with code example]
+
+### Medium/Low Vulnerabilities
+[...]
+
+### Security Best Practices Recommendations
+[...]
+
+### Overall Risk Assessment
+[High/Medium/Low with justification]
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- No vulnerabilities: Confirm security review completed, mention what was checked
+- False positives: Verify before reporting
+- Uncertain vulnerabilities: Mark as "potential" with caveat
+- Out of scope items: Note but don't deep-dive
+```
+
+## Customization Tips
+
+### Adapt to Your Domain
+
+Take these templates and customize:
+- Change domain expertise (e.g., "Python expert" vs "React expert")
+- Adjust process steps for your specific workflow
+- Modify output format to match your needs
+- Add domain-specific quality standards
+- Include technology-specific checks
+
+### Adjust Tool Access
+
+Restrict or expand based on agent needs:
+- **Read-only agents**: `["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]`
+- **Generator agents**: `["Read", "Write", "Grep"]`
+- **Executor agents**: `["Read", "Write", "Bash", "Grep"]`
+- **Full access**: Omit tools field
+
+### Customize Colors
+
+Choose colors that match agent purpose:
+- **Blue**: Analysis, review, investigation
+- **Cyan**: Documentation, information
+- **Green**: Generation, creation, success-oriented
+- **Yellow**: Validation, warnings, caution
+- **Red**: Security, critical analysis, errors
+- **Magenta**: Refactoring, transformation, creative
+
+## Using These Templates
+
+1. Copy template that matches your use case
+2. Replace placeholders with your specifics
+3. Customize process steps for your domain
+4. Adjust the trigger scenarios in `description:` and "When to invoke" to match your real triggering needs
+5. Validate with `scripts/validate-agent.sh`
+6. Test triggering with real scenarios
+7. Iterate based on agent performance
+
+These templates provide battle-tested starting points. Customize them for your specific needs while maintaining the proven structure.

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/references/agent-creation-system-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+# Agent Creation System Prompt
+
+This is the system prompt to drive AI-assisted agent generation. The example format uses prose triggers in `whenToUse` and a "When to invoke" body section in `systemPrompt`.
+
+## The Prompt
+
+```
+You are an elite AI agent architect specializing in crafting high-performance agent configurations. Your expertise lies in translating user requirements into precisely-tuned agent specifications that maximize effectiveness and reliability.
+
+**Important Context**: You may have access to project-specific instructions from CLAUDE.md files and other context that may include coding standards, project structure, and custom requirements. Consider this context when creating agents to ensure they align with the project's established patterns and practices.
+
+When a user describes what they want an agent to do, you will:
+
+1. **Extract Core Intent**: Identify the fundamental purpose, key responsibilities, and success criteria for the agent. Look for both explicit requirements and implicit needs. Consider any project-specific context from CLAUDE.md files. For agents that are meant to review code, you should assume that the user is asking to review recently written code and not the whole codebase, unless the user has explicitly instructed you otherwise.
+
+2. **Design Expert Persona**: Create a compelling expert identity that embodies deep domain knowledge relevant to the task. The persona should inspire confidence and guide the agent's decision-making approach.
+
+3. **Architect Comprehensive Instructions**: Develop a system prompt that:
+   - Establishes clear behavioral boundaries and operational parameters
+   - Provides specific methodologies and best practices for task execution
+   - Anticipates edge cases and provides guidance for handling them
+   - Incorporates any specific requirements or preferences mentioned by the user
+   - Defines output format expectations when relevant
+   - Aligns with project-specific coding standards and patterns from CLAUDE.md
+   - Begins with a "When to invoke" section listing 2-4 trigger scenarios as prose bullets (see step 6 for the format)
+
+4. **Optimize for Performance**: Include:
+   - Decision-making frameworks appropriate to the domain
+   - Quality control mechanisms and self-verification steps
+   - Efficient workflow patterns
+   - Clear escalation or fallback strategies
+
+5. **Create Identifier**: Design a concise, descriptive identifier that:
+   - Uses lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens only
+   - Is typically 2-4 words joined by hyphens
+   - Clearly indicates the agent's primary function
+   - Is memorable and easy to type
+   - Avoids generic terms like "helper" or "assistant"
+
+6. **Trigger description format**:
+   - The 'whenToUse' field is flat prose on a single line.
+   - Format: "Use this agent when [conditions]. Typical triggers include [scenario 1], [scenario 2], and [scenario 3]. See \"When to invoke\" in the agent body for worked scenarios."
+   - Detailed scenarios go in the system prompt under a "When to invoke" heading, as a bullet list of prose descriptions. Each bullet starts with a bold short scenario name followed by a prose description of the situation and what the agent should do.
+   - Example bullets:
+     - "**Proactive review after new code.** The assistant has just written a function in response to a user request. Run a self-review for quality and security before declaring the task done."
+     - "**Explicit review request.** The user asks for the recent changes to be reviewed. Run a thorough review and report findings."
+   - Cover both proactive and reactive triggers when applicable. Do NOT use quoted user utterances at the start of sentences — describe the *situation* the user is in, not the literal phrase they say.
+
+Your output must be a valid JSON object with exactly these fields:
+{
+  "identifier": "A unique, descriptive identifier using lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens (e.g., 'code-reviewer', 'api-docs-writer', 'test-generator')",
+  "whenToUse": "A precise, actionable description starting with 'Use this agent when...' that clearly defines the triggering conditions and use cases. Flat prose only. End with a pointer to the 'When to invoke' section in the agent body.",
+  "systemPrompt": "The complete system prompt that will govern the agent's behavior, written in second person ('You are...', 'You will...'). Begins with a 'When to invoke' section (2-4 prose bullets) and follows with persona, responsibilities, process, output format, and edge cases."
+}
+
+Key principles for your system prompts:
+- Be specific rather than generic - avoid vague instructions
+- Include concrete examples when they would clarify behavior (as prose)
+- Balance comprehensiveness with clarity - every instruction should add value
+- Ensure the agent has enough context to handle variations of the core task
+- Make the agent proactive in seeking clarification when needed
+- Build in quality assurance and self-correction mechanisms
+
+Remember: The agents you create should be autonomous experts capable of handling their designated tasks with minimal additional guidance. Your system prompts are their complete operational manual.
+```
+
+## Usage Pattern
+
+Use this prompt to generate agent configurations:
+
+**User input:** "I need an agent that reviews pull requests for code quality issues"
+
+**You send to Claude with the system prompt above:**
+```
+Create an agent configuration based on this request: "I need an agent that reviews pull requests for code quality issues"
+```
+
+**Claude returns JSON (note: prose `whenToUse`, "When to invoke" section in `systemPrompt`):**
+```json
+{
+  "identifier": "pr-quality-reviewer",
+  "whenToUse": "Use this agent when the user asks to review a pull request, check code quality, or analyze PR changes. Typical triggers include the user asking for a quality review of a specific PR, and a pre-merge sanity check before approving a PR. See \"When to invoke\" in the agent body for worked scenarios.",
+  "systemPrompt": "You are an expert code quality reviewer...\n\n## When to invoke\n\n- **PR quality review request.** The user asks for a quality review of a specific pull request (any phrasing). Fetch the PR diff and run a thorough quality review.\n- **Pre-merge sanity check.** The user signals they're about to merge a PR. Review the diff first to surface any quality issues that should block merge.\n\n**Your Core Responsibilities:**\n1. Analyze code changes for quality issues\n2. Check adherence to best practices\n..."
+}
+```
+
+## Converting to Agent File
+
+Take the JSON output and create the agent markdown file:
+
+**agents/pr-quality-reviewer.md:**
+```markdown
+---
+name: pr-quality-reviewer
+description: Use this agent when the user asks to review a pull request, check code quality, or analyze PR changes. Typical triggers include the user asking for a quality review of a specific PR, and a pre-merge sanity check before approving a PR. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for worked scenarios.
+model: inherit
+color: blue
+---
+
+You are an expert code quality reviewer...
+
+## When to invoke
+
+- **PR quality review request.** The user asks for a quality review of a specific pull request (any phrasing). Fetch the PR diff and run a thorough quality review.
+- **Pre-merge sanity check.** The user signals they're about to merge a PR. Review the diff first to surface any quality issues that should block merge.
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Analyze code changes for quality issues
+2. Check adherence to best practices
+...
+```
+
+## Customization Tips
+
+### Adapt the System Prompt
+
+The base prompt above can be enhanced for specific needs:
+
+**For security-focused agents:**
+```
+Add after "Architect Comprehensive Instructions":
+- Include OWASP top 10 security considerations
+- Check for common vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, etc.)
+- Validate input sanitization
+```
+
+**For test-generation agents:**
+```
+Add after "Optimize for Performance":
+- Follow AAA pattern (Arrange, Act, Assert)
+- Include edge cases and error scenarios
+- Ensure test isolation and cleanup
+```
+
+**For documentation agents:**
+```
+Add after "Design Expert Persona":
+- Use clear, concise language
+- Include code examples
+- Follow project documentation standards from CLAUDE.md
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### 1. Consider Project Context
+
+The prompt specifically mentions using CLAUDE.md context:
+- Agent should align with project patterns
+- Follow project-specific coding standards
+- Respect established practices
+
+### 2. Proactive Agent Design
+
+When the agent should be triggered proactively (without explicit user request), include a proactive trigger scenario in the "When to invoke" section. Describe the situation in prose:
+
+> - **Proactive review after new code.** The assistant has just written or modified code in response to a user request. Run a self-review for quality and security before declaring the task done.
+
+### 3. Scope Assumptions
+
+For code review agents, assume "recently written code" not entire codebase:
+```
+For agents that review code, assume recent changes unless explicitly
+stated otherwise.
+```
+
+### 4. Output Structure
+
+Always define clear output format in system prompt:
+```
+**Output Format:**
+Provide results as:
+1. Summary (2-3 sentences)
+2. Detailed findings (bullet points)
+3. Recommendations (action items)
+```
+
+## Integration with Plugin-Dev
+
+Use this system prompt when creating agents for your plugins:
+
+1. Take user request for agent functionality
+2. Feed to Claude with this system prompt
+3. Get JSON output (`identifier`, `whenToUse`, `systemPrompt`)
+4. Convert to agent markdown file with frontmatter
+5. Validate the file with agent validation rules
+6. Test triggering conditions
+7. Add to plugin's `agents/` directory
+
+This provides AI-assisted agent generation.

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/references/system-prompt-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
+# System Prompt Design Patterns
+
+Complete guide to writing effective agent system prompts that enable autonomous, high-quality operation.
+
+## Core Structure
+
+Every agent system prompt should follow this proven structure:
+
+```markdown
+You are [specific role] specializing in [specific domain].
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. [Primary responsibility - the main task]
+2. [Secondary responsibility - supporting task]
+3. [Additional responsibilities as needed]
+
+**[Task Name] Process:**
+1. [First concrete step]
+2. [Second concrete step]
+3. [Continue with clear steps]
+[...]
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- [Standard 1 with specifics]
+- [Standard 2 with specifics]
+- [Standard 3 with specifics]
+
+**Output Format:**
+Provide results structured as:
+- [Component 1]
+- [Component 2]
+- [Include specific formatting requirements]
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+Handle these situations:
+- [Edge case 1]: [Specific handling approach]
+- [Edge case 2]: [Specific handling approach]
+```
+
+## Pattern 1: Analysis Agents
+
+For agents that analyze code, PRs, or documentation:
+
+```markdown
+You are an expert [domain] analyzer specializing in [specific analysis type].
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Thoroughly analyze [what] for [specific issues]
+2. Identify [patterns/problems/opportunities]
+3. Provide actionable recommendations
+
+**Analysis Process:**
+1. **Gather Context**: Read [what] using available tools
+2. **Initial Scan**: Identify obvious [issues/patterns]
+3. **Deep Analysis**: Examine [specific aspects]:
+   - [Aspect 1]: Check for [criteria]
+   - [Aspect 2]: Verify [criteria]
+   - [Aspect 3]: Assess [criteria]
+4. **Synthesize Findings**: Group related issues
+5. **Prioritize**: Rank by [severity/impact/urgency]
+6. **Generate Report**: Format according to output template
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Every finding includes file:line reference
+- Issues categorized by severity (critical/major/minor)
+- Recommendations are specific and actionable
+- Positive observations included for balance
+
+**Output Format:**
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentence overview]
+
+## Critical Issues
+- [file:line] - [Issue description] - [Recommendation]
+
+## Major Issues
+[...]
+
+## Minor Issues
+[...]
+
+## Recommendations
+[...]
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- No issues found: Provide positive feedback and validation
+- Too many issues: Group and prioritize top 10
+- Unclear code: Request clarification rather than guessing
+```
+
+## Pattern 2: Generation Agents
+
+For agents that create code, tests, or documentation:
+
+```markdown
+You are an expert [domain] engineer specializing in creating high-quality [output type].
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Generate [what] that meets [quality standards]
+2. Follow [specific conventions/patterns]
+3. Ensure [correctness/completeness/clarity]
+
+**Generation Process:**
+1. **Understand Requirements**: Analyze what needs to be created
+2. **Gather Context**: Read existing [code/docs/tests] for patterns
+3. **Design Structure**: Plan [architecture/organization/flow]
+4. **Generate Content**: Create [output] following:
+   - [Convention 1]
+   - [Convention 2]
+   - [Best practice 1]
+5. **Validate**: Verify [correctness/completeness]
+6. **Document**: Add comments/explanations as needed
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Follows project conventions (check CLAUDE.md)
+- [Specific quality metric 1]
+- [Specific quality metric 2]
+- Includes error handling
+- Well-documented and clear
+
+**Output Format:**
+Create [what] with:
+- [Structure requirement 1]
+- [Structure requirement 2]
+- Clear, descriptive naming
+- Comprehensive coverage
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- Insufficient context: Ask user for clarification
+- Conflicting patterns: Follow most recent/explicit pattern
+- Complex requirements: Break into smaller pieces
+```
+
+## Pattern 3: Validation Agents
+
+For agents that validate, check, or verify:
+
+```markdown
+You are an expert [domain] validator specializing in ensuring [quality aspect].
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Validate [what] against [criteria]
+2. Identify violations and issues
+3. Provide clear pass/fail determination
+
+**Validation Process:**
+1. **Load Criteria**: Understand validation requirements
+2. **Scan Target**: Read [what] needs validation
+3. **Check Rules**: For each rule:
+   - [Rule 1]: [Validation method]
+   - [Rule 2]: [Validation method]
+4. **Collect Violations**: Document each failure with details
+5. **Assess Severity**: Categorize issues
+6. **Determine Result**: Pass only if [criteria met]
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- All violations include specific locations
+- Severity clearly indicated
+- Fix suggestions provided
+- No false positives
+
+**Output Format:**
+## Validation Result: [PASS/FAIL]
+
+## Summary
+[Overall assessment]
+
+## Violations Found: [count]
+### Critical ([count])
+- [Location]: [Issue] - [Fix]
+
+### Warnings ([count])
+- [Location]: [Issue] - [Fix]
+
+## Recommendations
+[How to fix violations]
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- No violations: Confirm validation passed
+- Too many violations: Group by type, show top 20
+- Ambiguous rules: Document uncertainty, request clarification
+```
+
+## Pattern 4: Orchestration Agents
+
+For agents that coordinate multiple tools or steps:
+
+```markdown
+You are an expert [domain] orchestrator specializing in coordinating [complex workflow].
+
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Coordinate [multi-step process]
+2. Manage [resources/tools/dependencies]
+3. Ensure [successful completion/integration]
+
+**Orchestration Process:**
+1. **Plan**: Understand full workflow and dependencies
+2. **Prepare**: Set up prerequisites
+3. **Execute Phases**:
+   - Phase 1: [What] using [tools]
+   - Phase 2: [What] using [tools]
+   - Phase 3: [What] using [tools]
+4. **Monitor**: Track progress and handle failures
+5. **Verify**: Confirm successful completion
+6. **Report**: Provide comprehensive summary
+
+**Quality Standards:**
+- Each phase completes successfully
+- Errors handled gracefully
+- Progress reported to user
+- Final state verified
+
+**Output Format:**
+## Workflow Execution Report
+
+### Completed Phases
+- [Phase]: [Result]
+
+### Results
+- [Output 1]
+- [Output 2]
+
+### Next Steps
+[If applicable]
+
+**Edge Cases:**
+- Phase failure: Attempt retry, then report and stop
+- Missing dependencies: Request from user
+- Timeout: Report partial completion
+```
+
+## Writing Style Guidelines
+
+### Tone and Voice
+
+**Use second person (addressing the agent):**
+```
+✅ You are responsible for...
+✅ You will analyze...
+✅ Your process should...
+
+❌ The agent is responsible for...
+❌ This agent will analyze...
+❌ I will analyze...
+```
+
+### Clarity and Specificity
+
+**Be specific, not vague:**
+```
+✅ Check for SQL injection by examining all database queries for parameterization
+❌ Look for security issues
+
+✅ Provide file:line references for each finding
+❌ Show where issues are
+
+✅ Categorize as critical (security), major (bugs), or minor (style)
+❌ Rate the severity of issues
+```
+
+### Actionable Instructions
+
+**Give concrete steps:**
+```
+✅ Read the file using the Read tool, then search for patterns using Grep
+❌ Analyze the code
+
+✅ Generate test file at test/path/to/file.test.ts
+❌ Create tests
+```
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### ❌ Vague Responsibilities
+
+```markdown
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Help the user with their code
+2. Provide assistance
+3. Be helpful
+```
+
+**Why bad:** Not specific enough to guide behavior.
+
+### ✅ Specific Responsibilities
+
+```markdown
+**Your Core Responsibilities:**
+1. Analyze TypeScript code for type safety issues
+2. Identify missing type annotations and improper 'any' usage
+3. Recommend specific type improvements with examples
+```
+
+### ❌ Missing Process Steps
+
+```markdown
+Analyze the code and provide feedback.
+```
+
+**Why bad:** Agent doesn't know HOW to analyze.
+
+### ✅ Clear Process
+
+```markdown
+**Analysis Process:**
+1. Read code files using Read tool
+2. Scan for type annotations on all functions
+3. Check for 'any' type usage
+4. Verify generic type parameters
+5. List findings with file:line references
+```
+
+### ❌ Undefined Output
+
+```markdown
+Provide a report.
+```
+
+**Why bad:** Agent doesn't know what format to use.
+
+### ✅ Defined Output Format
+
+```markdown
+**Output Format:**
+## Type Safety Report
+
+### Summary
+[Overview of findings]
+
+### Issues Found
+- `file.ts:42` - Missing return type on `processData`
+- `utils.ts:15` - Unsafe 'any' usage in parameter
+
+### Recommendations
+[Specific fixes with examples]
+```
+
+## Length Guidelines
+
+### Minimum Viable Agent
+
+**~500 words minimum:**
+- Role description
+- 3 core responsibilities
+- 5-step process
+- Output format
+
+### Standard Agent
+
+**~1,000-2,000 words:**
+- Detailed role and expertise
+- 5-8 responsibilities
+- 8-12 process steps
+- Quality standards
+- Output format
+- 3-5 edge cases
+
+### Comprehensive Agent
+
+**~2,000-5,000 words:**
+- Complete role with background
+- Comprehensive responsibilities
+- Detailed multi-phase process
+- Extensive quality standards
+- Multiple output formats
+- Many edge cases
+- Examples within system prompt
+
+**Avoid > 10,000 words:** Too long, diminishing returns.
+
+## Testing System Prompts
+
+### Test Completeness
+
+Can the agent handle these based on system prompt alone?
+
+- [ ] Typical task execution
+- [ ] Edge cases mentioned
+- [ ] Error scenarios
+- [ ] Unclear requirements
+- [ ] Large/complex inputs
+- [ ] Empty/missing inputs
+
+### Test Clarity
+
+Read the system prompt and ask:
+
+- Can another developer understand what this agent does?
+- Are process steps clear and actionable?
+- Is output format unambiguous?
+- Are quality standards measurable?
+
+### Iterate Based on Results
+
+After testing agent:
+1. Identify where it struggled
+2. Add missing guidance to system prompt
+3. Clarify ambiguous instructions
+4. Add process steps for edge cases
+5. Re-test
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Effective system prompts are:
+- **Specific**: Clear about what and how
+- **Structured**: Organized with clear sections
+- **Complete**: Covers normal and edge cases
+- **Actionable**: Provides concrete steps
+- **Testable**: Defines measurable standards
+
+Use the patterns above as templates, customize for your domain, and iterate based on agent performance.

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/references/triggering-examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+# Agent Triggering: Best Practices
+
+Complete guide to writing trigger descriptions that cause an agent to be dispatched reliably.
+
+## Where trigger descriptions live
+
+An agent file has two places that talk about triggering:
+
+1. **`description:` field in YAML frontmatter.** Loaded into context whenever the agent is registered, used by the harness to decide when to dispatch. Keep it flat prose.
+2. **A "When to invoke" section in the agent body.** Loaded only when the agent is actually invoked. This is where worked scenarios live, as a bullet list of prose descriptions.
+
+## Format
+
+### `description:` field
+
+```
+description: Use this agent when [conditions]. Typical triggers include [scenario 1 phrased as a prose noun phrase], [scenario 2], and [scenario 3]. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for worked scenarios.
+```
+
+Rules:
+- Single line of flat prose within the YAML scalar.
+- Name 2-4 trigger scenarios as noun phrases.
+- End with the pointer to the body's "When to invoke" section.
+
+### "When to invoke" body section
+
+```markdown
+## When to invoke
+
+[Two to four representative scenarios as prose bullets. Each describes the situation
+in third person and what the agent should do.]
+
+- **[Short scenario name].** [What the situation looks like — what just happened or what
+  the user is asking for — and what the agent should do in response.]
+- **[Short scenario name].** [Same.]
+```
+
+## Anatomy of a good scenario
+
+### Scenario name (the bold lead)
+
+**Purpose:** A short noun phrase identifying the situation type.
+
+**Good names:**
+- *User-requested review after a feature lands.*
+- *Proactive review of newly-written code.*
+- *Pre-PR sanity check.*
+- *PR updated with new logic.*
+
+**Bad names:**
+- *Normal usage.* (not specific)
+- *User needs help.* (vague)
+
+### Scenario body (after the lead)
+
+**Purpose:** Describe what happens and what the agent should do — in prose, third person, no quoted utterances.
+
+**Good:**
+> The user has just implemented a feature (often spanning several files) and asks whether everything looks good. Run a review of the recent diff and report findings.
+
+**Bad (transcript shape — do not use):**
+> ```
+> user: "Can you check if everything looks good?"
+> assistant: "I'll use the reviewer agent..."
+> ```
+
+The bad version mixes a turn-marker shape into the agent file. Keep scenarios as situation descriptions in prose.
+
+## Trigger types to cover
+
+Aim for 2-4 scenarios that span these axes:
+
+### Explicit request
+The user directly asks for what the agent does.
+- *User-requested security check.* The user explicitly asks for a security review of recent code.
+
+### Proactive triggering
+The assistant invokes the agent without an explicit ask, after relevant work.
+- *Proactive review after writing database code.* The assistant has just authored database access code and should check for SQL injection and other database-layer risks before declaring the task done.
+
+### Implicit request
+The user implies need without naming the agent.
+- *Code-clarity complaint.* The user describes existing code as confusing or hard to follow. Treat as a request to refactor for readability.
+
+### Tool-usage pattern
+The agent should follow a particular tool-use pattern.
+- *Post-test-edit verification.* The assistant has just made multiple edits to test files. Verify the edited tests still meet quality and coverage standards before continuing.
+
+## Phrasing variation
+
+If the same intent is commonly phrased multiple ways, mention that in prose:
+
+> **Pre-PR sanity check.** The user signals (in any phrasing — "ready to open a PR", "I think we're done here", "let's ship this") that they're about to open a pull request.
+
+Don't write three near-duplicate scenarios that differ only in the literal phrase — collapse them into one prose scenario that names the variation.
+
+## How many scenarios?
+
+- **Minimum: 2.** Usually one explicit + one proactive.
+- **Recommended: 3-4.** Explicit, proactive, and one implicit or edge case.
+- **Maximum: 5.** More than that bloats the body without adding routing signal.
+
+## Worked example
+
+### Prose triggers in `description:`
+
+```yaml
+description: Use this agent when you need to review code. Typical triggers include user-requested review after a feature lands, proactive review of freshly-written code, and a pre-PR sanity check. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for worked scenarios.
+```
+
+### Scenarios as situation descriptions in the body
+
+```markdown
+## When to invoke
+
+- **User-requested review.** The user asks for a review of recent changes (any phrasing). Run a review of the unstaged diff.
+```
+
+### Trigger condition only — output format goes elsewhere
+
+```markdown
+- **Review.** The user asks for a review. Run the review and report findings as specified in the Output Format section.
+```
+
+## Template library
+
+### Code review agent
+
+```yaml
+description: Use this agent when you need to review code for adherence to project guidelines and best practices. Typical triggers include the user asking for a review of a feature they just implemented, proactive review of newly-written code before declaring a task done, and a pre-PR sanity check. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+```
+
+```markdown
+## When to invoke
+
+- **User-requested review after a feature lands.** The user has implemented a feature and asks whether the result looks good. Review the recent diff and report findings.
+- **Proactive review of newly-written code.** The assistant has just authored new code in response to a user request. Run a self-review before declaring the task done.
+- **Pre-PR sanity check.** The user signals readiness to open a pull request. Review the full diff first.
+```
+
+### Test generation agent
+
+```yaml
+description: Use this agent when you need to generate tests for code that lacks them. Typical triggers include the user explicitly asking for tests for a function or module, and the assistant proactively generating tests after writing new code that has no test coverage. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+```
+
+```markdown
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Explicit test request.** The user asks for tests covering a specific function, module, or feature. Generate a comprehensive test suite.
+- **Proactive coverage after new code.** The assistant has just written new code with no accompanying tests. Generate tests before declaring the task done.
+```
+
+### Documentation agent
+
+```yaml
+description: Use this agent when you need to write or improve documentation for code, especially APIs. Typical triggers include the user asking for docs on a specific function or endpoint, and proactive documentation generation after the assistant adds new API surface. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+```
+
+```markdown
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Explicit doc request.** The user asks for documentation for a specific surface (function, endpoint, module).
+- **Proactive docs for new API surface.** The assistant has just added new API endpoints or public functions without docstrings.
+```
+
+### Validation agent
+
+```yaml
+description: Use this agent when you need to validate code before commit or merge. Typical triggers include the user signaling readiness to commit, and an explicit validation request. See "When to invoke" in the agent body.
+```
+
+```markdown
+## When to invoke
+
+- **Pre-commit validation.** The user signals readiness to commit. Run validation first and surface any issues.
+- **Explicit validation request.** The user asks for the code to be validated.
+```
+
+## Debugging triggering issues
+
+### Agent not triggering
+
+Check:
+1. The `description:` prose names the right trigger scenarios.
+2. The scenarios in the body cover the actual phrasings the user uses.
+3. There isn't a more-specific competing agent winning the routing decision.
+
+Fix: add or expand scenarios in the body, and tighten the prose summary in `description:`.
+
+### Agent triggers too often
+
+Check:
+1. The trigger scenarios are too generic or overlap with other agents.
+2. The `description:` doesn't say when NOT to use the agent.
+
+Fix: narrow the scenarios; add a "Do not invoke when..." line to `description:` if needed.
+
+### Agent triggers in the wrong scenarios
+
+Check:
+1. Whether the scenarios in the body match the agent's actual capabilities.
+
+Fix: rewrite scenarios to match what the agent actually does.
+
+## Best practices summary
+
+- Keep `description:` as flat prose with a short summary of trigger scenarios
+- Put detailed scenarios in a "When to invoke" body section, as prose bullets
+- Cover both explicit and proactive triggering
+- Describe situations the agent should respond to
+- Mention phrasing variation in prose ("any phrasing — 'ready to ship', 'looks done'") rather than via multiple near-duplicate scenarios
+- Keep trigger scenarios separate from output format
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Reliable triggering comes from prose descriptions of the situations an agent should respond to.

data/skills/anthropics/developing-agents/scripts/validate-agent.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+# Agent File Validator
+# Validates agent markdown files for correct structure and content
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+# Usage
+if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
+  echo "Usage: $0 <path/to/agent.md>"
+  echo ""
+  echo "Validates agent file for:"
+  echo "  - YAML frontmatter structure"
+  echo "  - Required fields (name, description, model, color)"
+  echo "  - Field formats and constraints"
+  echo "  - System prompt presence and length"
+  echo "  - Example blocks in description"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+AGENT_FILE="$1"
+
+echo "🔍 Validating agent file: $AGENT_FILE"
+echo ""
+
+# Check 1: File exists
+if [ ! -f "$AGENT_FILE" ]; then
+  echo "❌ File not found: $AGENT_FILE"
+  exit 1
+fi
+echo "✅ File exists"
+
+# Check 2: Starts with ---
+FIRST_LINE=$(head -1 "$AGENT_FILE")
+if [ "$FIRST_LINE" != "---" ]; then
+  echo "❌ File must start with YAML frontmatter (---)"
+  exit 1
+fi
+echo "✅ Starts with frontmatter"
+
+# Check 3: Has closing ---
+if ! tail -n +2 "$AGENT_FILE" | grep -q '^---$'; then
+  echo "❌ Frontmatter not closed (missing second ---)"
+  exit 1
+fi
+echo "✅ Frontmatter properly closed"
+
+# Extract frontmatter and system prompt
+FRONTMATTER=$(sed -n '/^---$/,/^---$/{ /^---$/d; p; }' "$AGENT_FILE")
+SYSTEM_PROMPT=$(awk '/^---$/{i++; next} i>=2' "$AGENT_FILE")
+
+# Check 4: Required fields
+echo ""
+echo "Checking required fields..."
+
+error_count=0
+warning_count=0
+
+# Check name field
+NAME=$(echo "$FRONTMATTER" | grep '^name:' | sed 's/name: *//' | sed 's/^"\(.*\)"$/\1/')
+
+if [ -z "$NAME" ]; then
+  echo "❌ Missing required field: name"
+  ((error_count++))
+else
+  echo "✅ name: $NAME"
+
+  # Validate name format
+  if ! [[ "$NAME" =~ ^[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9-]*[a-zA-Z0-9]$ ]]; then
+    echo "❌ name must start/end with alphanumeric and contain only letters, numbers, hyphens"
+    ((error_count++))
+  fi
+
+  # Validate name length
+  name_length=${#NAME}
+  if [ $name_length -lt 3 ]; then
+    echo "❌ name too short (minimum 3 characters)"
+    ((error_count++))
+  elif [ $name_length -gt 50 ]; then
+    echo "❌ name too long (maximum 50 characters)"
+    ((error_count++))
+  fi
+
+  # Check for generic names
+  if [[ "$NAME" =~ ^(helper|assistant|agent|tool)$ ]]; then
+    echo "⚠️  name is too generic: $NAME"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  fi
+fi
+
+# Check description field
+DESCRIPTION=$(echo "$FRONTMATTER" | grep '^description:' | sed 's/description: *//')
+
+if [ -z "$DESCRIPTION" ]; then
+  echo "❌ Missing required field: description"
+  ((error_count++))
+else
+  desc_length=${#DESCRIPTION}
+  echo "✅ description: ${desc_length} characters"
+
+  if [ $desc_length -lt 10 ]; then
+    echo "⚠️  description too short (minimum 10 characters recommended)"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  elif [ $desc_length -gt 5000 ]; then
+    echo "⚠️  description very long (over 5000 characters)"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  fi
+
+  # Check for example blocks
+  if ! echo "$DESCRIPTION" | grep -q '<example>'; then
+    echo "⚠️  description should include <example> blocks for triggering"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  fi
+
+  # Check for "Use this agent when" pattern
+  if ! echo "$DESCRIPTION" | grep -qi 'use this agent when'; then
+    echo "⚠️  description should start with 'Use this agent when...'"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  fi
+fi
+
+# Check model field
+MODEL=$(echo "$FRONTMATTER" | grep '^model:' | sed 's/model: *//')
+
+if [ -z "$MODEL" ]; then
+  echo "❌ Missing required field: model"
+  ((error_count++))
+else
+  echo "✅ model: $MODEL"
+
+  case "$MODEL" in
+    inherit|sonnet|opus|haiku)
+      # Valid model
+      ;;
+    *)
+      echo "⚠️  Unknown model: $MODEL (valid: inherit, sonnet, opus, haiku)"
+      ((warning_count++))
+      ;;
+  esac
+fi
+
+# Check color field
+COLOR=$(echo "$FRONTMATTER" | grep '^color:' | sed 's/color: *//')
+
+if [ -z "$COLOR" ]; then
+  echo "❌ Missing required field: color"
+  ((error_count++))
+else
+  echo "✅ color: $COLOR"
+
+  case "$COLOR" in
+    blue|cyan|green|yellow|magenta|red)
+      # Valid color
+      ;;
+    *)
+      echo "⚠️  Unknown color: $COLOR (valid: blue, cyan, green, yellow, magenta, red)"
+      ((warning_count++))
+      ;;
+  esac
+fi
+
+# Check tools field (optional)
+TOOLS=$(echo "$FRONTMATTER" | grep '^tools:' | sed 's/tools: *//')
+
+if [ -n "$TOOLS" ]; then
+  echo "✅ tools: $TOOLS"
+else
+  echo "💡 tools: not specified (agent has access to all tools)"
+fi
+
+# Check 5: System prompt
+echo ""
+echo "Checking system prompt..."
+
+if [ -z "$SYSTEM_PROMPT" ]; then
+  echo "❌ System prompt is empty"
+  ((error_count++))
+else
+  prompt_length=${#SYSTEM_PROMPT}
+  echo "✅ System prompt: $prompt_length characters"
+
+  if [ $prompt_length -lt 20 ]; then
+    echo "❌ System prompt too short (minimum 20 characters)"
+    ((error_count++))
+  elif [ $prompt_length -gt 10000 ]; then
+    echo "⚠️  System prompt very long (over 10,000 characters)"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  fi
+
+  # Check for second person
+  if ! echo "$SYSTEM_PROMPT" | grep -q "You are\|You will\|Your"; then
+    echo "⚠️  System prompt should use second person (You are..., You will...)"
+    ((warning_count++))
+  fi
+
+  # Check for structure
+  if ! echo "$SYSTEM_PROMPT" | grep -qi "responsibilities\|process\|steps"; then
+    echo "💡 Consider adding clear responsibilities or process steps"
+  fi
+
+  if ! echo "$SYSTEM_PROMPT" | grep -qi "output"; then
+    echo "💡 Consider defining output format expectations"
+  fi
+fi
+
+echo ""
+echo "━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━"
+
+if [ $error_count -eq 0 ] && [ $warning_count -eq 0 ]; then
+  echo "✅ All checks passed!"
+  exit 0
+elif [ $error_count -eq 0 ]; then
+  echo "⚠️  Validation passed with $warning_count warning(s)"
+  exit 0
+else
+  echo "❌ Validation failed with $error_count error(s) and $warning_count warning(s)"
+  exit 1
+fi

data/skills/asyrafhussin/ATTRIBUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Attribution
+Skills vendored from https://github.com/asyrafhussin/agent-skills
+License: see LICENSE

data/skills/asyrafhussin/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Asyraf Hussin
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

data/skills/asyrafhussin/optimizing-react-vite/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+---
+name: optimizing-react-vite
+description: React and Vite performance optimization guidelines. Use when optimizing React components built with Vite, or when tasks involve build optimization, code splitting, lazy loading, HMR, bundle size reduction, or React rendering performance. Do NOT trigger for purely non-performance Vite configuration tasks (e.g. adding a path alias, changing port).
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  author: agent-skills
+  version: "2.0.0"
+---
+
+# React + Vite Best Practices
+
+Comprehensive performance optimization guide for React applications built with Vite. Contains 23 rules across 6 categories for build optimization, code splitting, development performance, asset handling, environment configuration, and bundle analysis.
+
+## Metadata
+
+- **Version:** 2.0.0
+- **Framework:** React + Vite
+- **Rule Count:** 23 rules across 6 categories
+- **License:** MIT
+
+## When to Apply
+
+Reference these guidelines when:
+- Configuring Vite for React projects
+- Implementing code splitting and lazy loading
+- Optimizing build output and bundle size
+- Setting up development environment and HMR
+- Handling images, fonts, SVGs, and static assets
+- Managing environment variables across environments
+- Analyzing bundle size and dependencies
+
+## Rule Categories by Priority
+
+| Priority | Category | Impact | Prefix |
+|----------|----------|--------|--------|
+| 1 | Build Optimization | CRITICAL | `build-` |
+| 2 | Code Splitting | CRITICAL | `split-` |
+| 3 | Development | HIGH | `dev-` |
+| 4 | Asset Handling | HIGH | `asset-` |
+| 5 | Environment Config | MEDIUM | `env-` |
+| 6 | Bundle Analysis | MEDIUM | `bundle-` |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### 1. Build Optimization (CRITICAL)
+
+- `build-manual-chunks` - Configure manual chunks for vendor separation
+- `build-minification` - Minification with OXC (default) or Terser
+- `build-target-modern` - Target modern browsers (baseline-widely-available)
+- `build-sourcemaps` - Configure sourcemaps per environment
+- `build-tree-shaking` - Ensure proper tree shaking with ESM
+- `build-compression` - Gzip and Brotli compression
+- `build-asset-hashing` - Content-based hashing for cache busting
+
+### 2. Code Splitting (CRITICAL)
+
+- `split-route-lazy` - Route-based splitting with React.lazy()
+- `split-suspense-boundaries` - Strategic Suspense boundary placement
+- `split-dynamic-imports` - Dynamic import() for heavy components
+- `split-component-lazy` - Lazy load non-critical components
+- `split-prefetch-hints` - Prefetch chunks on hover/idle/viewport
+
+### 3. Development (HIGH)
+
+- `dev-dependency-prebundling` - Configure optimizeDeps for faster starts
+- `dev-fast-refresh` - React Fast Refresh patterns
+- `dev-hmr-config` - HMR server configuration
+
+### 4. Asset Handling (HIGH)
+
+- `asset-image-optimization` - Image optimization and lazy loading
+- `asset-svg-components` - SVGs as React components with SVGR
+- `asset-fonts` - Web font loading strategy
+- `asset-public-dir` - Public directory vs JavaScript imports
+
+### 5. Environment Config (MEDIUM)
+
+- `env-vite-prefix` - VITE_ prefix for client variables
+- `env-modes` - Mode-specific environment files
+- `env-sensitive-data` - Never expose secrets in client code
+
+### 6. Bundle Analysis (MEDIUM)
+
+- `bundle-visualizer` - Analyze bundles with rollup-plugin-visualizer
+
+## Essential Configurations
+
+### Recommended vite.config.ts
+
+```typescript
+import { defineConfig } from 'vite'
+import react from '@vitejs/plugin-react'
+import path from 'path'
+
+export default defineConfig({
+  plugins: [react()],
+
+  resolve: {
+    alias: {
+      '@': path.resolve(__dirname, './src'),
+    },
+  },
+
+  build: {
+    target: 'baseline-widely-available',
+    sourcemap: false,
+    chunkSizeWarningLimit: 500,
+    rollupOptions: {
+      output: {
+        manualChunks: {
+          vendor: ['react', 'react-dom'],
+        },
+      },
+    },
+  },
+
+  optimizeDeps: {
+    include: ['react', 'react-dom'],
+  },
+
+  server: {
+    port: 3000,
+    hmr: {
+      overlay: true,
+    },
+  },
+})
+```
+
+### Route-Based Code Splitting
+
+```typescript
+import { lazy, Suspense } from 'react'
+
+const Home = lazy(() => import('./pages/Home'))
+const Dashboard = lazy(() => import('./pages/Dashboard'))
+const Settings = lazy(() => import('./pages/Settings'))
+
+function App() {
+  return (
+    <Suspense fallback={<LoadingSpinner />}>
+      {/* Routes here */}
+    </Suspense>
+  )
+}
+```
+
+### Environment Variables
+
+```typescript
+// src/vite-env.d.ts
+/// <reference types="vite/client" />
+
+interface ImportMetaEnv {
+  readonly VITE_API_URL: string
+  readonly VITE_APP_TITLE: string
+}
+
+interface ImportMeta {
+  readonly env: ImportMetaEnv
+}
+```
+
+## How to Use
+
+> **Note:** The `rules/` subdirectory and `AGENTS.md` referenced below are not present in this skill's directory. Do not attempt to read them — apply the guidelines from this SKILL.md directly.
+
+Apply the rules summarized in the Quick Reference above directly. The rule IDs (e.g. `build-manual-chunks`, `split-route-lazy`) serve as labels only — the Essential Configurations section above contains the canonical code examples.
+
+## References
+
+- [Vite Documentation](https://vite.dev)
+- [React Documentation](https://react.dev)
+- [Rollup Documentation](https://rollupjs.org)
+
+## Full Compiled Document
+
+> **Note:** `AGENTS.md` is not present in this skill's directory. The Quick Reference and Essential Configurations sections above contain the complete actionable guidance.

data/skills/asyrafhussin/optimizing-react-vite/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: optimizing-react-vite
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Our React + Vite bundle is 3 MB. How do I get it under 1 MB?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the optimizing-react-vite skill
+      - the response addresses code splitting, lazy loading, or dynamic import
+      - the response references Vite-specific config or build flags
+  - prompt: "How do I add a memoized selector to this React component?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the optimizing-react-vite skill
+      - the response addresses React.memo, useMemo, or useCallback
+  - prompt: "Help me write a Python script to parse CSV"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the optimizing-react-vite skill

data/skills/boocode/improving-boocode-guidance/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+---
+name: improving-boocode-guidance
+description: This skill should be used when the user asks to audit, review, check, improve, or critique CLAUDE.md, BOOCHAT.md, BOOCODER.md, or AGENTS.md files in a BooCode project. Examples: "audit my CLAUDE.md", "review my container guidance", "check this AGENTS.md for issues", "improve my BOOCHAT.md", "critique my BOOCODER.md".
+---
+
+# BooCode Guidance Improver
+
+Audit guidance files in a BooCode project against a 10-dimension rubric, then propose targeted edits. **Read-only.** Output is a scored report plus before/after edit proposals; Sam reviews and commits.
+
+## Phase 1 — Discovery
+
+Find every guidance file in the project. The expected set:
+
+- `CLAUDE.md` (repo root) — engineering conventions, gotchas, commands
+- `BOOCHAT.md` (repo root) — container guidance for the read-only chat surface
+- `BOOCODER.md` (repo root) — container guidance for the future write-capable surface (currently a stub)
+- `data/AGENTS.md` — single-file tier-2 agent registry, `## H2` per agent
+- `AGENTS.md` (repo root) — non-BooCode convention; rare in this repo
+
+Glob with `find_files` then load each with `view_file`:
+
+```
+find_files: pattern="{CLAUDE,BOOCHAT,BOOCODER,AGENTS}.md", path="."
+find_files: pattern="data/AGENTS.md", path="."
+```
+
+If a file expected by the project's architecture is missing (e.g. BOOCHAT.md is absent from the repo root in a project that exposes a chat container), flag it in the report as a separate "Missing" entry — don't try to score what isn't there. Likewise, if a file exists but is empty (≤5 lines, no real content), score it 1 across the board and recommend it be either populated or deleted; an empty guidance file is worse than no file because it consumes attention without paying any back.
+
+## Phase 2 — Score against the rubric
+
+For each file, score each of the 10 dimensions on 1–5 (1 = absent or actively misleading; 5 = exemplary). Use the rubric below verbatim. Cite a representative line range for each score.
+
+### a. Refusal rails up front
+
+The first ~10 lines name explicit "do not" directives — what the agent must not do, ideally with a one-line reason. Surfacing refusals early prevents the model from acting on a hopeful misread later.
+
+- **5** — first 10 lines contain ≥3 explicit refusals (e.g. *"Do not commit"*, *"Do not push"*, *"Do not write files"*) with brief reasons or contexts
+- **3** — refusals exist but are buried below line 30, or stated only once without context
+- **1** — no refusals anywhere; the agent has to infer constraints from positive instructions only
+
+### b. Version anchor
+
+A concrete version, tag, or date is mentioned near the top so a stale memory becomes obvious to a future reader. Pure "current" / "latest" claims rot silently.
+
+- **5** — version/tag in the first 20 lines, plus a "last meaningful update" date inline somewhere
+- **3** — a version tag exists but only deep in the file (e.g. inside a commit-history block)
+- **1** — no version, no date, no anchor; nothing to detect staleness against
+
+### c. Why-with-what
+
+Every non-obvious convention or rule is followed by a one-line justification (`Why:` / `Reason:` / dash). Rules without reasons can't be reasoned about at the edges; they get either blindly followed or quietly violated.
+
+- **5** — every non-trivial rule has a sentence-level "why" inline
+- **3** — most rules have reasons, but a few load-bearing ones (e.g. "use overflowWrap not wordWrap") are bare
+- **1** — rules read as commandments with no rationale
+
+### d. Authoritative vs misleading sources
+
+Places where a tool can lie (e.g. *"root `tsc --noEmit` uses project references and can miss errors that the per-app tsconfig catches"*) are called out, and the authoritative path is named. Without this, the agent picks the most convenient signal and ships a regression.
+
+- **5** — at least one explicit "X can lie; use Y instead" pair, named with file paths
+- **3** — implicit hints ("CLI is authoritative") without naming what the misleading signal is
+- **1** — no acknowledgement that any tool can lie
+
+### e. Resolution order
+
+For any stacked configuration (system prompts, env vars, agent definitions, schemas), the precedence is documented end-to-end with what wins on conflict. Missing precedence rules force the agent to guess at boundaries.
+
+- **5** — explicit ordered list (e.g. *"base → container guidance → agent.system_prompt → user prompt"*) with "last wins" or "first wins" stated
+- **3** — order is implied by section sequence but not stated; precedence on conflict is unclear
+- **1** — multiple sources mentioned, no order, no winner
+
+### f. Failure modes
+
+Each subsystem has a "what happens when this fails" note — fallbacks, defaults, swallow vs propagate decisions. Without this the agent assumes the happy path and writes brittle code.
+
+- **5** — every major subsystem (DB, broker, LLM call, tool execution) names its failure behavior
+- **3** — some failure paths documented, others implicit
+- **1** — failure modes invisible; reader can't tell what's defensive and what isn't
+
+### g. Don't / refusals (deep)
+
+Beyond the top-of-file refusal rails, the body contains a sustained "don't" thread — anti-patterns the project has burned on. Each "don't" should name what triggered it (PR, incident, refactor) so it can be re-evaluated.
+
+- **5** — multiple "don't" entries scattered through the file, each with a hint at the triggering context
+- **3** — a handful of "don't"s, no context — reader can't tell what's still load-bearing
+- **1** — pure positive instructions; no anti-pattern surface
+
+### h. Concrete call sites
+
+Specific file paths and symbol names are used (e.g. `apps/server/src/services/inference.ts:209-225 buildSystemPrompt`), not vague pointers ("in the service layer", "somewhere in tools"). Vague pointers force the agent into an extra search round-trip per claim.
+
+- **5** — claims about code consistently cite file:line or file:symbol (e.g. *"buildSystemPrompt at apps/server/src/services/system-prompt.ts:42"*)
+- **3** — some claims cite paths but not lines or symbols (*"in apps/server/src/services/inference.ts"*)
+- **1** — claims read like "the broker handles pub/sub" with no path at all
+
+A reliable test for this dimension: pick three random claims about behaviour, and try to land at the named code in two clicks. If you can't, the score drops.
+
+### i. Convention drift guards
+
+Pairs of files that must stay in sync are named explicitly (e.g. *"CHECK constraints in schema.sql ↔ `*_STATUSES` const arrays in `apps/server/src/types/api.ts`"*). Without these guards, one half drifts and the test that would catch it doesn't exist.
+
+- **5** — every cross-file invariant in the project has a "keep in sync" callout
+- **3** — one or two such guards present; obvious sibling files (frontend type ↔ backend type) not mentioned
+- **1** — invariants are invisible; every edit risks silent divergence
+
+### j. No theater
+
+Every line earns its keep. No "be helpful", no "remember to think step by step", no "as an AI assistant" preamble. Theater wastes tokens and trains the model to skim.
+
+- **5** — every line carries either a fact, a rule, or a pointer; reads tight
+- **3** — a few filler sentences ("strive for excellence", "remember to think carefully") but mostly substantive
+- **1** — heavy preamble, motivational platitudes, or restated framework defaults
+
+Worth a separate pass: re-read the file and ask "would removing this line confuse a future reader?" — if the honest answer is no, the line is theater and should go.
+
+## Phase 3 — Propose one concrete edit per ≤3
+
+For every dimension scoring 3 or lower, generate one specific edit proposal. Each proposal must be:
+
+- **File**: full repo-relative path
+- **Anchor**: a quoted ~one-line existing string or `(new section after L<n>)`
+- **Before**: existing text (or `(none)`)
+- **After**: proposed text
+- **Why**: one sentence linking back to the rubric dimension and what the change unlocks
+
+Example proposal:
+
+```
+### Proposed edit 1 — dimension (a) Refusal rails up front
+
+File: BOOCHAT.md
+Anchor: "## Capabilities" (L3)
+Before:
+  ## Capabilities
+After:
+  ## You cannot
+  - Write, edit, or delete files
+  - Run shell commands
+  - Make commits, push, or pull
+
+  ## Capabilities
+Why: the upstream rubric requires explicit "do not" rails in the first 10 lines so the
+model can't reach for a write tool and self-justify after the fact.
+```
+
+Keep proposals minimal. One edit per dimension scoring ≤3 — don't pad. If a single edit would lift two dimensions at once, say so and don't double-count.
+
+Do not propose more than ~10 edits per file. If a file scores ≤3 on more than 10 dimensions (rare), the file needs a rewrite, not patches — say that instead, and propose a high-level outline rather than a flood of line-level edits.
+
+## Phase 4 — Output
+
+Output as a single numbered list, in this order:
+
+1. Per-file score table: 10 rows × score column × one-line evidence column
+2. Per-file aggregate (sum out of 50) and overall grade band: A (≥45), B (35–44), C (25–34), D (15–24), F (<15)
+3. Proposed edits, numbered globally across all files
+4. Closing one-line summary: *"X files audited, Y edits proposed, top weak dimension across files: Z."*
+
+Do not edit any file. Do not call any write tool. Sam reads the report, picks which edits to apply, and commits them manually.
+
+## Anti-patterns this skill explicitly avoids
+
+- Auto-generating CLAUDE.md from scratch (different problem — that's `claude-md-improver`'s domain)
+- Scoring the *project's* code quality (out of scope — this rubric is about guidance files only)
+- Padding the report with generic "best practices" not tied to one of the 10 dimensions
+- Restating the rubric in every per-file section (state it once at the top, reference dimensions by letter throughout)

data/skills/boocode/improving-boocode-guidance/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+skill: improving-boocode-guidance
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Audit my CLAUDE.md and tell me what to improve"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the improving-boocode-guidance skill
+      - the response scores against the 10-dimension rubric
+      - the response cites line ranges in CLAUDE.md
+      - the response proposes before/after edits, not just complaints
+  - prompt: "Check my BOOCHAT.md for issues"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the improving-boocode-guidance skill
+      - the response evaluates the file against the rubric
+  - prompt: "Explain how Docker layer caching works"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the improving-boocode-guidance skill

data/skills/mattpocock/ATTRIBUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Attribution
+
+Skills in this directory are vendored from https://github.com/mattpocock/skills
+License: see LICENSE
+Vendored: 2026-05-17
+Author: Matt Pocock

data/skills/mattpocock/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Matt Pocock
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

data/skills/mattpocock/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+---
+name: diagnosing-bugs
+description: Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing/not working/something wrong, or describes a performance regression.
+---
+
+# Diagnose
+
+A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
+
+When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
+
+**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug, you will find the cause — bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume that signal. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.
+
+Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
+
+### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+
+1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
+2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
+3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
+4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
+5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
+6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
+7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
+8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
+9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+
+Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
+
+### Iterate on the loop itself
+
+Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
+
+- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
+- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
+- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
+
+A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. A 2-second deterministic loop is a debugging superpower.
+
+### Non-deterministic bugs
+
+The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
+
+### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
+
+Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
+
+Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in.
+
+## Phase 2 — Reproduce
+
+Run the loop. Watch the bug appear.
+
+Confirm:
+
+- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
+- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
+- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
+
+Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
+
+## Phase 3 — Hypothesise
+
+Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
+
+Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.
+
+> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."
+
+If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.
+
+**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.
+
+## Phase 4 — Instrument
+
+Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**
+
+Tool preference:
+
+1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
+2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
+3. Never "log everything and grep".
+
+**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
+
+**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.
+
+## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
+
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
+
+If a correct seam exists:
+
+1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
+2. Watch it fail.
+3. Apply the fix.
+4. Watch it pass.
+5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
+
+## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem
+
+Required before declaring done:
+
+- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
+- [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)
+- [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix)
+- [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)
+- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message — so the next debugger learns
+
+**Then ask: what would have prevented this bug?** If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to the `/improve-codebase-architecture` skill with the specifics. Make the recommendation **after** the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started.

data/skills/mattpocock/diagnosing-bugs/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: diagnosing-bugs
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Diagnose this: the API returns 500 every Friday afternoon but works fine other days"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the diagnosing-bugs skill
+      - the response asks for or constructs a feedback loop (failing test, repro script, captured trace)
+      - the response does not jump to a fix before establishing the loop
+  - prompt: "My tests have started failing intermittently after the v1.4 deploy"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the diagnosing-bugs skill
+      - the response addresses determinism (seeded RNG, time pinning, isolated env)
+  - prompt: "Write a haiku about autumn"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the diagnosing-bugs skill

data/skills/mattpocock/diagnosing-bugs/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Human-in-the-loop reproduction loop.
+# Copy this file, edit the steps below, and run it.
+# The agent runs the script; the user follows prompts in their terminal.
+#
+# Usage:
+#   bash hitl-loop.template.sh
+#
+# Two helpers:
+#   step "<instruction>"          → show instruction, wait for Enter
+#   capture VAR "<question>"      → show question, read response into VAR
+#
+# At the end, captured values are printed as KEY=VALUE for the agent to parse.
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+step() {
+  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$1"
+  read -r -p "    [Enter when done] " _
+}
+
+capture() {
+  local var="$1" question="$2" answer
+  printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$question"
+  read -r -p "    > " answer
+  printf -v "$var" '%s' "$answer"
+}
+
+# --- edit below ---------------------------------------------------------
+
+step "Open the app at http://localhost:3000 and sign in."
+
+capture ERRORED "Click the 'Export' button. Did it throw an error? (y/n)"
+
+capture ERROR_MSG "Paste the error message (or 'none'):"
+
+# --- edit above ---------------------------------------------------------
+
+printf '\n--- Captured ---\n'
+printf 'ERRORED=%s\n' "$ERRORED"
+printf 'ERROR_MSG=%s\n' "$ERROR_MSG"

data/skills/mattpocock/grilling-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+name: grilling-plans
+description: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, poke holes in a design, challenge an approach, play devil's advocate, asks "what am I missing", or mentions "grill me".
+---
+
+## Tool integration — MANDATORY
+
+When a question has 2-4 discrete options, you MUST call the `ask_user_input` tool. Do NOT render the options as a markdown list, bulleted list, or numbered list. Do NOT format them as text under any circumstance.
+
+For open-ended (free-form answer) questions, plain prose is fine.
+
+If you find yourself about to write `- Option A\n- Option B\n- Option C`, STOP. Call ask_user_input instead.
+
+## Interview
+
+Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
+
+Ask the questions one at a time.
+
+If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.

data/skills/mattpocock/grilling-plans/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: grilling-plans
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Grill me on this plan to migrate from REST to GraphQL"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the grilling-plans skill
+      - the response asks pointed questions about the plan
+      - the response surfaces decision-tree branches rather than agreeing
+  - prompt: "Stress-test my design for a new auth flow"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the grilling-plans skill
+      - the response probes assumptions rather than confirming them
+  - prompt: "What's the capital of France?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the grilling-plans skill

data/skills/mattpocock/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+name: writing-skills
+description: Propose new agent skills with proper structure, progressive disclosure, and bundled resources. Use when user wants to draft, write, create, or design a new skill.
+---
+
+# Writing Skills
+
+> BooChat adaptation: this skill runs in a read-only environment. The "draft the skill" step outputs **proposed file paths and full file contents** as text — it does NOT create directories or write files. Sam mkdir's and commits manually.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Gather requirements** - ask user about:
+   - What task/domain does the skill cover?
+   - What specific use cases should it handle?
+   - Does it need executable scripts or just instructions?
+   - Any reference materials to include?
+
+2. **Propose the skill** - output as a single response:
+   - The target directory path (e.g. `/opt/skills/<group>/<skill-name>/`)
+   - The full proposed `SKILL.md` content in a fenced block, prefixed with its target filename
+   - Any additional reference files (`REFERENCE.md`, `EXAMPLES.md`) as separate fenced blocks if content exceeds 500 lines
+   - Any utility scripts as separate fenced blocks
+   - Do NOT call any write/edit/mkdir tool — output is text only
+
+3. **Review with user** - present the proposal and ask:
+   - Does this cover your use cases?
+   - Anything missing or unclear?
+   - Should any section be more/less detailed?
+
+## Skill Structure
+
+```
+skill-name/
+├── SKILL.md           # Main instructions (required)
+├── REFERENCE.md       # Detailed docs (if needed)
+├── EXAMPLES.md        # Usage examples (if needed)
+└── scripts/           # Utility scripts (if needed)
+    └── helper.js
+```
+
+## SKILL.md Template
+
+```md
+---
+name: skill-name
+description: Brief description of capability. Use when [specific triggers].
+---
+
+# Skill Name
+
+## Quick start
+
+[Minimal working example]
+
+## Workflows
+
+[Step-by-step processes with checklists for complex tasks]
+
+## Advanced features
+
+[Link to separate files: See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md)]
+```
+
+## Description Requirements
+
+The description is **the only thing your agent sees** when deciding which skill to load. It's surfaced in the system prompt alongside all other installed skills. Your agent reads these descriptions and picks the relevant skill based on the user's request.
+
+**Goal**: Give your agent just enough info to know:
+
+1. What capability this skill provides
+2. When/why to trigger it (specific keywords, contexts, file types)
+
+**Format**:
+
+- Max 1024 chars
+- Write in third person
+- First sentence: what it does
+- Second sentence: "Use when [specific triggers]"
+
+**Good example**:
+
+```
+Extract text and tables from PDF files, fill forms, merge documents. Use when working with PDF files or when user mentions PDFs, forms, or document extraction.
+```
+
+**Bad example**:
+
+```
+Helps with documents.
+```
+
+The bad example gives your agent no way to distinguish this from other document skills.
+
+## When to Add Scripts
+
+Add utility scripts when:
+
+- Operation is deterministic (validation, formatting)
+- Same code would be generated repeatedly
+- Errors need explicit handling
+
+Scripts save tokens and improve reliability vs generated code.
+
+## When to Split Files
+
+Split into separate files when:
+
+- SKILL.md exceeds 100 lines
+- Content has distinct domains (finance vs sales schemas)
+- Advanced features are rarely needed
+
+## Review Checklist
+
+After drafting, verify:
+
+- [ ] Description includes triggers ("Use when...")
+- [ ] Description ≤1024 chars
+- [ ] SKILL.md under 100 lines
+- [ ] No time-sensitive info
+- [ ] Consistent terminology
+- [ ] Concrete examples included
+- [ ] References one level deep

data/skills/mattpocock/writing-skills/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+skill: writing-skills
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Help me draft a new skill for scaffolding Fastify routes"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the writing-skills skill
+      - the response produces a SKILL.md with proper frontmatter (name, description)
+      - the response uses progressive disclosure (references/ for bulk)
+      - the response uses gerund naming convention
+  - prompt: "Design a skill that triggers when the user asks for a database schema review"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the writing-skills skill
+      - the response writes a description with specific trigger phrases
+  - prompt: "Recommend a JavaScript framework"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the writing-skills skill

data/skills/superpowers/ATTRIBUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Attribution
+
+Skills in this directory are vendored from https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+License: MIT (see LICENSE in this directory)
+Vendored: 2026-05-17
+Author: Jesse Vincent (obra) and contributors

data/skills/superpowers/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+---
+name: brainstorming
+description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, refactoring, or making non-trivial modifications to existing behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation."
+---
+
+# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
+
+Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
+
+Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
+
+Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
+
+## Checklist
+
+You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
+
+1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
+2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.
+3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
+4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
+5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
+6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
+7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
+8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
+9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
+
+## Process Flow
+
+```dot
+digraph brainstorming {
+    "Explore project context" [shape=box];
+    "Visual questions ahead?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [shape=box];
+    "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
+    "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
+    "Present design sections" [shape=box];
+    "User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Write design doc" [shape=box];
+    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
+    "User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+    "Explore project context" -> "Visual questions ahead?";
+    "Visual questions ahead?" -> "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [label="yes"];
+    "Visual questions ahead?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"];
+    "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
+    "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
+    "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
+    "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
+    "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
+    "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
+    "Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
+    "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
+    "User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
+    "User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"];
+}
+```
+
+**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke designing-frontends, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
+
+## The Process
+
+**Understanding the idea:**
+
+- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
+- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
+- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
+- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
+- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
+- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
+- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
+
+**Exploring approaches:**
+
+- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
+- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
+- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
+
+**Presenting the design:**
+
+- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
+- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
+- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
+- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
+- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
+
+**Design for isolation and clarity:**
+
+- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
+- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
+- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
+- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.
+
+**Working in existing codebases:**
+
+- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
+- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
+- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
+
+## After the Design
+
+**Documentation:**
+
+- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
+  - (User preferences for spec location override this default)
+- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
+- Commit the design document to git
+
+**Spec Self-Review:**
+After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
+
+1. **Placeholder scan:** Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
+2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
+3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
+4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.
+
+Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.
+
+**User Review Gate:**
+After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
+
+> "Spec written and committed to `<path>`. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."
+
+Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
+
+**Implementation:**
+
+- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
+- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
+- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
+- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
+- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
+- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on
+- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
+
+## Visual Companion
+
+A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
+
+**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
+> "Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"
+
+**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.
+
+**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?**
+
+- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
+- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
+
+A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.
+
+If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
+`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md`

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+skill: brainstorming
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Build a feature that lets users export their chat history as PDF"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the brainstorming skill
+      - the response explores user intent, requirements, and design before implementation
+      - the response does NOT jump straight to writing code
+      - the terminal state is invoking writing-plans, not implementation
+  - prompt: "Add a real-time notifications panel to the sidebar"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the brainstorming skill
+      - the response asks clarifying questions about scope and constraints
+  - prompt: "What is 2 + 2?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the brainstorming skill

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/scripts/frame-template.html

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html>
+<head>
+  <meta charset="utf-8">
+  <title>Superpowers Brainstorming</title>
+  <style>
+    /*
+     * BRAINSTORM COMPANION FRAME TEMPLATE
+     *
+     * This template provides a consistent frame with:
+     * - OS-aware light/dark theming
+     * - Fixed header and selection indicator bar
+     * - Scrollable main content area
+     * - CSS helpers for common UI patterns
+     *
+     * Content is injected via placeholder comment in #claude-content.
+     */
+
+    * { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }
+    html, body { height: 100%; overflow: hidden; }
+
+    /* ===== THEME VARIABLES ===== */
+    :root {
+      --bg-primary: #f5f5f7;
+      --bg-secondary: #ffffff;
+      --bg-tertiary: #e5e5e7;
+      --border: #d1d1d6;
+      --text-primary: #1d1d1f;
+      --text-secondary: #86868b;
+      --text-tertiary: #aeaeb2;
+      --accent: #0071e3;
+      --accent-hover: #0077ed;
+      --success: #34c759;
+      --warning: #ff9f0a;
+      --error: #ff3b30;
+      --selected-bg: #e8f4fd;
+      --selected-border: #0071e3;
+    }
+
+    @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
+      :root {
+        --bg-primary: #1d1d1f;
+        --bg-secondary: #2d2d2f;
+        --bg-tertiary: #3d3d3f;
+        --border: #424245;
+        --text-primary: #f5f5f7;
+        --text-secondary: #86868b;
+        --text-tertiary: #636366;
+        --accent: #0a84ff;
+        --accent-hover: #409cff;
+        --selected-bg: rgba(10, 132, 255, 0.15);
+        --selected-border: #0a84ff;
+      }
+    }
+
+    body {
+      font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;
+      background: var(--bg-primary);
+      color: var(--text-primary);
+      display: flex;
+      flex-direction: column;
+      line-height: 1.5;
+    }
+
+    /* ===== FRAME STRUCTURE ===== */
+    .header {
+      background: var(--bg-secondary);
+      padding: 0.5rem 1.5rem;
+      display: flex;
+      justify-content: space-between;
+      align-items: center;
+      border-bottom: 1px solid var(--border);
+      flex-shrink: 0;
+    }
+    .header h1 { font-size: 0.85rem; font-weight: 500; color: var(--text-secondary); }
+    .header .status { font-size: 0.7rem; color: var(--success); display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 0.4rem; }
+    .header .status::before { content: ''; width: 6px; height: 6px; background: var(--success); border-radius: 50%; }
+
+    .main { flex: 1; overflow-y: auto; }
+    #claude-content { padding: 2rem; min-height: 100%; }
+
+    .indicator-bar {
+      background: var(--bg-secondary);
+      border-top: 1px solid var(--border);
+      padding: 0.5rem 1.5rem;
+      flex-shrink: 0;
+      text-align: center;
+    }
+    .indicator-bar span {
+      font-size: 0.75rem;
+      color: var(--text-secondary);
+    }
+    .indicator-bar .selected-text {
+      color: var(--accent);
+      font-weight: 500;
+    }
+
+    /* ===== TYPOGRAPHY ===== */
+    h2 { font-size: 1.5rem; font-weight: 600; margin-bottom: 0.5rem; }
+    h3 { font-size: 1.1rem; font-weight: 600; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; }
+    .subtitle { color: var(--text-secondary); margin-bottom: 1.5rem; }
+    .section { margin-bottom: 2rem; }
+    .label { font-size: 0.7rem; color: var(--text-secondary); text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.05em; margin-bottom: 0.5rem; }
+
+    /* ===== OPTIONS (for A/B/C choices) ===== */
+    .options { display: flex; flex-direction: column; gap: 0.75rem; }
+    .option {
+      background: var(--bg-secondary);
+      border: 2px solid var(--border);
+      border-radius: 12px;
+      padding: 1rem 1.25rem;
+      cursor: pointer;
+      transition: all 0.15s ease;
+      display: flex;
+      align-items: flex-start;
+      gap: 1rem;
+    }
+    .option:hover { border-color: var(--accent); }
+    .option.selected { background: var(--selected-bg); border-color: var(--selected-border); }
+    .option .letter {
+      background: var(--bg-tertiary);
+      color: var(--text-secondary);
+      width: 1.75rem; height: 1.75rem;
+      border-radius: 6px;
+      display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center;
+      font-weight: 600; font-size: 0.85rem; flex-shrink: 0;
+    }
+    .option.selected .letter { background: var(--accent); color: white; }
+    .option .content { flex: 1; }
+    .option .content h3 { font-size: 0.95rem; margin-bottom: 0.15rem; }
+    .option .content p { color: var(--text-secondary); font-size: 0.85rem; margin: 0; }
+
+    /* ===== CARDS (for showing designs/mockups) ===== */
+    .cards { display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(280px, 1fr)); gap: 1rem; }
+    .card {
+      background: var(--bg-secondary);
+      border: 1px solid var(--border);
+      border-radius: 12px;
+      overflow: hidden;
+      cursor: pointer;
+      transition: all 0.15s ease;
+    }
+    .card:hover { border-color: var(--accent); transform: translateY(-2px); box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0,0,0,0.1); }
+    .card.selected { border-color: var(--selected-border); border-width: 2px; }
+    .card-image { background: var(--bg-tertiary); aspect-ratio: 16/10; display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; }
+    .card-body { padding: 1rem; }
+    .card-body h3 { margin-bottom: 0.25rem; }
+    .card-body p { color: var(--text-secondary); font-size: 0.85rem; }
+
+    /* ===== MOCKUP CONTAINER ===== */
+    .mockup {
+      background: var(--bg-secondary);
+      border: 1px solid var(--border);
+      border-radius: 12px;
+      overflow: hidden;
+      margin-bottom: 1.5rem;
+    }
+    .mockup-header {
+      background: var(--bg-tertiary);
+      padding: 0.5rem 1rem;
+      font-size: 0.75rem;
+      color: var(--text-secondary);
+      border-bottom: 1px solid var(--border);
+    }
+    .mockup-body { padding: 1.5rem; }
+
+    /* ===== SPLIT VIEW (side-by-side comparison) ===== */
+    .split { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 1.5rem; }
+    @media (max-width: 700px) { .split { grid-template-columns: 1fr; } }
+
+    /* ===== PROS/CONS ===== */
+    .pros-cons { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 1rem; margin: 1rem 0; }
+    .pros, .cons { background: var(--bg-secondary); border-radius: 8px; padding: 1rem; }
+    .pros h4 { color: var(--success); font-size: 0.85rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem; }
+    .cons h4 { color: var(--error); font-size: 0.85rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem; }
+    .pros ul, .cons ul { margin-left: 1.25rem; font-size: 0.85rem; color: var(--text-secondary); }
+    .pros li, .cons li { margin-bottom: 0.25rem; }
+
+    /* ===== PLACEHOLDER (for mockup areas) ===== */
+    .placeholder {
+      background: var(--bg-tertiary);
+      border: 2px dashed var(--border);
+      border-radius: 8px;
+      padding: 2rem;
+      text-align: center;
+      color: var(--text-tertiary);
+    }
+
+    /* ===== INLINE MOCKUP ELEMENTS ===== */
+    .mock-nav { background: var(--accent); color: white; padding: 0.75rem 1rem; display: flex; gap: 1.5rem; font-size: 0.9rem; }
+    .mock-sidebar { background: var(--bg-tertiary); padding: 1rem; min-width: 180px; }
+    .mock-content { padding: 1.5rem; flex: 1; }
+    .mock-button { background: var(--accent); color: white; border: none; padding: 0.5rem 1rem; border-radius: 6px; font-size: 0.85rem; }
+    .mock-input { background: var(--bg-primary); border: 1px solid var(--border); border-radius: 6px; padding: 0.5rem; width: 100%; }
+  </style>
+</head>
+<body>
+  <div class="header">
+    <h1><a href="https://github.com/obra/superpowers" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: none;">Superpowers Brainstorming</a></h1>
+    <div class="status">Connected</div>
+  </div>
+
+  <div class="main">
+    <div id="claude-content">
+      <!-- CONTENT -->
+    </div>
+  </div>
+
+  <div class="indicator-bar">
+    <span id="indicator-text">Click an option above, then return to the terminal</span>
+  </div>
+
+</body>
+</html>

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/scripts/helper.js

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+(function() {
+  const WS_URL = 'ws://' + window.location.host;
+  let ws = null;
+  let eventQueue = [];
+
+  function connect() {
+    ws = new WebSocket(WS_URL);
+
+    ws.onopen = () => {
+      eventQueue.forEach(e => ws.send(JSON.stringify(e)));
+      eventQueue = [];
+    };
+
+    ws.onmessage = (msg) => {
+      const data = JSON.parse(msg.data);
+      if (data.type === 'reload') {
+        window.location.reload();
+      }
+    };
+
+    ws.onclose = () => {
+      setTimeout(connect, 1000);
+    };
+  }
+
+  function sendEvent(event) {
+    event.timestamp = Date.now();
+    if (ws && ws.readyState === WebSocket.OPEN) {
+      ws.send(JSON.stringify(event));
+    } else {
+      eventQueue.push(event);
+    }
+  }
+
+  // Capture clicks on choice elements
+  document.addEventListener('click', (e) => {
+    const target = e.target.closest('[data-choice]');
+    if (!target) return;
+
+    sendEvent({
+      type: 'click',
+      text: target.textContent.trim(),
+      choice: target.dataset.choice,
+      id: target.id || null
+    });
+
+    // Update indicator bar (defer so toggleSelect runs first)
+    setTimeout(() => {
+      const indicator = document.getElementById('indicator-text');
+      if (!indicator) return;
+      const container = target.closest('.options') || target.closest('.cards');
+      const selected = container ? container.querySelectorAll('.selected') : [];
+      if (selected.length === 0) {
+        indicator.textContent = 'Click an option above, then return to the terminal';
+      } else if (selected.length === 1) {
+        const label = selected[0].querySelector('h3, .content h3, .card-body h3')?.textContent?.trim() || selected[0].dataset.choice;
+        indicator.innerHTML = '<span class="selected-text">' + label + ' selected</span> — return to terminal to continue';
+      } else {
+        indicator.innerHTML = '<span class="selected-text">' + selected.length + ' selected</span> — return to terminal to continue';
+      }
+    }, 0);
+  });
+
+  // Frame UI: selection tracking
+  window.selectedChoice = null;
+
+  window.toggleSelect = function(el) {
+    const container = el.closest('.options') || el.closest('.cards');
+    const multi = container && container.dataset.multiselect !== undefined;
+    if (container && !multi) {
+      container.querySelectorAll('.option, .card').forEach(o => o.classList.remove('selected'));
+    }
+    if (multi) {
+      el.classList.toggle('selected');
+    } else {
+      el.classList.add('selected');
+    }
+    window.selectedChoice = el.dataset.choice;
+  };
+
+  // Expose API for explicit use
+  window.brainstorm = {
+    send: sendEvent,
+    choice: (value, metadata = {}) => sendEvent({ type: 'choice', value, ...metadata })
+  };
+
+  connect();
+})();

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/scripts/server.cjs

@@ -0,0 +1,354 @@
+const crypto = require('crypto');
+const http = require('http');
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+
+// ========== WebSocket Protocol (RFC 6455) ==========
+
+const OPCODES = { TEXT: 0x01, CLOSE: 0x08, PING: 0x09, PONG: 0x0A };
+const WS_MAGIC = '258EAFA5-E914-47DA-95CA-C5AB0DC85B11';
+
+function computeAcceptKey(clientKey) {
+  return crypto.createHash('sha1').update(clientKey + WS_MAGIC).digest('base64');
+}
+
+function encodeFrame(opcode, payload) {
+  const fin = 0x80;
+  const len = payload.length;
+  let header;
+
+  if (len < 126) {
+    header = Buffer.alloc(2);
+    header[0] = fin | opcode;
+    header[1] = len;
+  } else if (len < 65536) {
+    header = Buffer.alloc(4);
+    header[0] = fin | opcode;
+    header[1] = 126;
+    header.writeUInt16BE(len, 2);
+  } else {
+    header = Buffer.alloc(10);
+    header[0] = fin | opcode;
+    header[1] = 127;
+    header.writeBigUInt64BE(BigInt(len), 2);
+  }
+
+  return Buffer.concat([header, payload]);
+}
+
+function decodeFrame(buffer) {
+  if (buffer.length < 2) return null;
+
+  const secondByte = buffer[1];
+  const opcode = buffer[0] & 0x0F;
+  const masked = (secondByte & 0x80) !== 0;
+  let payloadLen = secondByte & 0x7F;
+  let offset = 2;
+
+  if (!masked) throw new Error('Client frames must be masked');
+
+  if (payloadLen === 126) {
+    if (buffer.length < 4) return null;
+    payloadLen = buffer.readUInt16BE(2);
+    offset = 4;
+  } else if (payloadLen === 127) {
+    if (buffer.length < 10) return null;
+    payloadLen = Number(buffer.readBigUInt64BE(2));
+    offset = 10;
+  }
+
+  const maskOffset = offset;
+  const dataOffset = offset + 4;
+  const totalLen = dataOffset + payloadLen;
+  if (buffer.length < totalLen) return null;
+
+  const mask = buffer.slice(maskOffset, dataOffset);
+  const data = Buffer.alloc(payloadLen);
+  for (let i = 0; i < payloadLen; i++) {
+    data[i] = buffer[dataOffset + i] ^ mask[i % 4];
+  }
+
+  return { opcode, payload: data, bytesConsumed: totalLen };
+}
+
+// ========== Configuration ==========
+
+const PORT = process.env.BRAINSTORM_PORT || (49152 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 16383));
+const HOST = process.env.BRAINSTORM_HOST || '127.0.0.1';
+const URL_HOST = process.env.BRAINSTORM_URL_HOST || (HOST === '127.0.0.1' ? 'localhost' : HOST);
+const SESSION_DIR = process.env.BRAINSTORM_DIR || '/tmp/brainstorm';
+const CONTENT_DIR = path.join(SESSION_DIR, 'content');
+const STATE_DIR = path.join(SESSION_DIR, 'state');
+let ownerPid = process.env.BRAINSTORM_OWNER_PID ? Number(process.env.BRAINSTORM_OWNER_PID) : null;
+
+const MIME_TYPES = {
+  '.html': 'text/html', '.css': 'text/css', '.js': 'application/javascript',
+  '.json': 'application/json', '.png': 'image/png', '.jpg': 'image/jpeg',
+  '.jpeg': 'image/jpeg', '.gif': 'image/gif', '.svg': 'image/svg+xml'
+};
+
+// ========== Templates and Constants ==========
+
+const WAITING_PAGE = `<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html>
+<head><meta charset="utf-8"><title>Brainstorm Companion</title>
+<style>body { font-family: system-ui, sans-serif; padding: 2rem; max-width: 800px; margin: 0 auto; }
+h1 { color: #333; } p { color: #666; }</style>
+</head>
+<body><h1>Brainstorm Companion</h1>
+<p>Waiting for the agent to push a screen...</p></body></html>`;
+
+const frameTemplate = fs.readFileSync(path.join(__dirname, 'frame-template.html'), 'utf-8');
+const helperScript = fs.readFileSync(path.join(__dirname, 'helper.js'), 'utf-8');
+const helperInjection = '<script>\n' + helperScript + '\n</script>';
+
+// ========== Helper Functions ==========
+
+function isFullDocument(html) {
+  const trimmed = html.trimStart().toLowerCase();
+  return trimmed.startsWith('<!doctype') || trimmed.startsWith('<html');
+}
+
+function wrapInFrame(content) {
+  return frameTemplate.replace('<!-- CONTENT -->', content);
+}
+
+function getNewestScreen() {
+  const files = fs.readdirSync(CONTENT_DIR)
+    .filter(f => f.endsWith('.html'))
+    .map(f => {
+      const fp = path.join(CONTENT_DIR, f);
+      return { path: fp, mtime: fs.statSync(fp).mtime.getTime() };
+    })
+    .sort((a, b) => b.mtime - a.mtime);
+  return files.length > 0 ? files[0].path : null;
+}
+
+// ========== HTTP Request Handler ==========
+
+function handleRequest(req, res) {
+  touchActivity();
+  if (req.method === 'GET' && req.url === '/') {
+    const screenFile = getNewestScreen();
+    let html = screenFile
+      ? (raw => isFullDocument(raw) ? raw : wrapInFrame(raw))(fs.readFileSync(screenFile, 'utf-8'))
+      : WAITING_PAGE;
+
+    if (html.includes('</body>')) {
+      html = html.replace('</body>', helperInjection + '\n</body>');
+    } else {
+      html += helperInjection;
+    }
+
+    res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': 'text/html; charset=utf-8' });
+    res.end(html);
+  } else if (req.method === 'GET' && req.url.startsWith('/files/')) {
+    const fileName = req.url.slice(7);
+    const filePath = path.join(CONTENT_DIR, path.basename(fileName));
+    if (!fs.existsSync(filePath)) {
+      res.writeHead(404);
+      res.end('Not found');
+      return;
+    }
+    const ext = path.extname(filePath).toLowerCase();
+    const contentType = MIME_TYPES[ext] || 'application/octet-stream';
+    res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': contentType });
+    res.end(fs.readFileSync(filePath));
+  } else {
+    res.writeHead(404);
+    res.end('Not found');
+  }
+}
+
+// ========== WebSocket Connection Handling ==========
+
+const clients = new Set();
+
+function handleUpgrade(req, socket) {
+  const key = req.headers['sec-websocket-key'];
+  if (!key) { socket.destroy(); return; }
+
+  const accept = computeAcceptKey(key);
+  socket.write(
+    'HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols\r\n' +
+    'Upgrade: websocket\r\n' +
+    'Connection: Upgrade\r\n' +
+    'Sec-WebSocket-Accept: ' + accept + '\r\n\r\n'
+  );
+
+  let buffer = Buffer.alloc(0);
+  clients.add(socket);
+
+  socket.on('data', (chunk) => {
+    buffer = Buffer.concat([buffer, chunk]);
+    while (buffer.length > 0) {
+      let result;
+      try {
+        result = decodeFrame(buffer);
+      } catch (e) {
+        socket.end(encodeFrame(OPCODES.CLOSE, Buffer.alloc(0)));
+        clients.delete(socket);
+        return;
+      }
+      if (!result) break;
+      buffer = buffer.slice(result.bytesConsumed);
+
+      switch (result.opcode) {
+        case OPCODES.TEXT:
+          handleMessage(result.payload.toString());
+          break;
+        case OPCODES.CLOSE:
+          socket.end(encodeFrame(OPCODES.CLOSE, Buffer.alloc(0)));
+          clients.delete(socket);
+          return;
+        case OPCODES.PING:
+          socket.write(encodeFrame(OPCODES.PONG, result.payload));
+          break;
+        case OPCODES.PONG:
+          break;
+        default: {
+          const closeBuf = Buffer.alloc(2);
+          closeBuf.writeUInt16BE(1003);
+          socket.end(encodeFrame(OPCODES.CLOSE, closeBuf));
+          clients.delete(socket);
+          return;
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  });
+
+  socket.on('close', () => clients.delete(socket));
+  socket.on('error', () => clients.delete(socket));
+}
+
+function handleMessage(text) {
+  let event;
+  try {
+    event = JSON.parse(text);
+  } catch (e) {
+    console.error('Failed to parse WebSocket message:', e.message);
+    return;
+  }
+  touchActivity();
+  console.log(JSON.stringify({ source: 'user-event', ...event }));
+  if (event.choice) {
+    const eventsFile = path.join(STATE_DIR, 'events');
+    fs.appendFileSync(eventsFile, JSON.stringify(event) + '\n');
+  }
+}
+
+function broadcast(msg) {
+  const frame = encodeFrame(OPCODES.TEXT, Buffer.from(JSON.stringify(msg)));
+  for (const socket of clients) {
+    try { socket.write(frame); } catch (e) { clients.delete(socket); }
+  }
+}
+
+// ========== Activity Tracking ==========
+
+const IDLE_TIMEOUT_MS = 30 * 60 * 1000; // 30 minutes
+let lastActivity = Date.now();
+
+function touchActivity() {
+  lastActivity = Date.now();
+}
+
+// ========== File Watching ==========
+
+const debounceTimers = new Map();
+
+// ========== Server Startup ==========
+
+function startServer() {
+  if (!fs.existsSync(CONTENT_DIR)) fs.mkdirSync(CONTENT_DIR, { recursive: true });
+  if (!fs.existsSync(STATE_DIR)) fs.mkdirSync(STATE_DIR, { recursive: true });
+
+  // Track known files to distinguish new screens from updates.
+  // macOS fs.watch reports 'rename' for both new files and overwrites,
+  // so we can't rely on eventType alone.
+  const knownFiles = new Set(
+    fs.readdirSync(CONTENT_DIR).filter(f => f.endsWith('.html'))
+  );
+
+  const server = http.createServer(handleRequest);
+  server.on('upgrade', handleUpgrade);
+
+  const watcher = fs.watch(CONTENT_DIR, (eventType, filename) => {
+    if (!filename || !filename.endsWith('.html')) return;
+
+    if (debounceTimers.has(filename)) clearTimeout(debounceTimers.get(filename));
+    debounceTimers.set(filename, setTimeout(() => {
+      debounceTimers.delete(filename);
+      const filePath = path.join(CONTENT_DIR, filename);
+
+      if (!fs.existsSync(filePath)) return; // file was deleted
+      touchActivity();
+
+      if (!knownFiles.has(filename)) {
+        knownFiles.add(filename);
+        const eventsFile = path.join(STATE_DIR, 'events');
+        if (fs.existsSync(eventsFile)) fs.unlinkSync(eventsFile);
+        console.log(JSON.stringify({ type: 'screen-added', file: filePath }));
+      } else {
+        console.log(JSON.stringify({ type: 'screen-updated', file: filePath }));
+      }
+
+      broadcast({ type: 'reload' });
+    }, 100));
+  });
+  watcher.on('error', (err) => console.error('fs.watch error:', err.message));
+
+  function shutdown(reason) {
+    console.log(JSON.stringify({ type: 'server-stopped', reason }));
+    const infoFile = path.join(STATE_DIR, 'server-info');
+    if (fs.existsSync(infoFile)) fs.unlinkSync(infoFile);
+    fs.writeFileSync(
+      path.join(STATE_DIR, 'server-stopped'),
+      JSON.stringify({ reason, timestamp: Date.now() }) + '\n'
+    );
+    watcher.close();
+    clearInterval(lifecycleCheck);
+    server.close(() => process.exit(0));
+  }
+
+  function ownerAlive() {
+    if (!ownerPid) return true;
+    try { process.kill(ownerPid, 0); return true; } catch (e) { return e.code === 'EPERM'; }
+  }
+
+  // Check every 60s: exit if owner process died or idle for 30 minutes
+  const lifecycleCheck = setInterval(() => {
+    if (!ownerAlive()) shutdown('owner process exited');
+    else if (Date.now() - lastActivity > IDLE_TIMEOUT_MS) shutdown('idle timeout');
+  }, 60 * 1000);
+  lifecycleCheck.unref();
+
+  // Validate owner PID at startup. If it's already dead, the PID resolution
+  // was wrong (common on WSL, Tailscale SSH, and cross-user scenarios).
+  // Disable monitoring and rely on the idle timeout instead.
+  if (ownerPid) {
+    try { process.kill(ownerPid, 0); }
+    catch (e) {
+      if (e.code !== 'EPERM') {
+        console.log(JSON.stringify({ type: 'owner-pid-invalid', pid: ownerPid, reason: 'dead at startup' }));
+        ownerPid = null;
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  server.listen(PORT, HOST, () => {
+    const info = JSON.stringify({
+      type: 'server-started', port: Number(PORT), host: HOST,
+      url_host: URL_HOST, url: 'http://' + URL_HOST + ':' + PORT,
+      screen_dir: CONTENT_DIR, state_dir: STATE_DIR
+    });
+    console.log(info);
+    fs.writeFileSync(path.join(STATE_DIR, 'server-info'), info + '\n');
+  });
+}
+
+if (require.main === module) {
+  startServer();
+}
+
+module.exports = { computeAcceptKey, encodeFrame, decodeFrame, OPCODES };

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/scripts/start-server.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Start the brainstorm server and output connection info
+# Usage: start-server.sh [--project-dir <path>] [--host <bind-host>] [--url-host <display-host>] [--foreground] [--background]
+#
+# Starts server on a random high port, outputs JSON with URL.
+# Each session gets its own directory to avoid conflicts.
+#
+# Options:
+#   --project-dir <path>  Store session files under <path>/.superpowers/brainstorm/
+#                         instead of /tmp. Files persist after server stops.
+#   --host <bind-host>    Host/interface to bind (default: 127.0.0.1).
+#                         Use 0.0.0.0 in remote/containerized environments.
+#   --url-host <host>     Hostname shown in returned URL JSON.
+#   --foreground          Run server in the current terminal (no backgrounding).
+#   --background          Force background mode (overrides Codex auto-foreground).
+
+SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
+
+# Parse arguments
+PROJECT_DIR=""
+FOREGROUND="false"
+FORCE_BACKGROUND="false"
+BIND_HOST="127.0.0.1"
+URL_HOST=""
+while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
+  case "$1" in
+    --project-dir)
+      PROJECT_DIR="$2"
+      shift 2
+      ;;
+    --host)
+      BIND_HOST="$2"
+      shift 2
+      ;;
+    --url-host)
+      URL_HOST="$2"
+      shift 2
+      ;;
+    --foreground|--no-daemon)
+      FOREGROUND="true"
+      shift
+      ;;
+    --background|--daemon)
+      FORCE_BACKGROUND="true"
+      shift
+      ;;
+    *)
+      echo "{\"error\": \"Unknown argument: $1\"}"
+      exit 1
+      ;;
+  esac
+done
+
+if [[ -z "$URL_HOST" ]]; then
+  if [[ "$BIND_HOST" == "127.0.0.1" || "$BIND_HOST" == "localhost" ]]; then
+    URL_HOST="localhost"
+  else
+    URL_HOST="$BIND_HOST"
+  fi
+fi
+
+# Some environments reap detached/background processes. Auto-foreground when detected.
+if [[ -n "${CODEX_CI:-}" && "$FOREGROUND" != "true" && "$FORCE_BACKGROUND" != "true" ]]; then
+  FOREGROUND="true"
+fi
+
+# Windows/Git Bash reaps nohup background processes. Auto-foreground when detected.
+if [[ "$FOREGROUND" != "true" && "$FORCE_BACKGROUND" != "true" ]]; then
+  case "${OSTYPE:-}" in
+    msys*|cygwin*|mingw*) FOREGROUND="true" ;;
+  esac
+  if [[ -n "${MSYSTEM:-}" ]]; then
+    FOREGROUND="true"
+  fi
+fi
+
+# Generate unique session directory
+SESSION_ID="$$-$(date +%s)"
+
+if [[ -n "$PROJECT_DIR" ]]; then
+  SESSION_DIR="${PROJECT_DIR}/.superpowers/brainstorm/${SESSION_ID}"
+else
+  SESSION_DIR="/tmp/brainstorm-${SESSION_ID}"
+fi
+
+STATE_DIR="${SESSION_DIR}/state"
+PID_FILE="${STATE_DIR}/server.pid"
+LOG_FILE="${STATE_DIR}/server.log"
+
+# Create fresh session directory with content and state peers
+mkdir -p "${SESSION_DIR}/content" "$STATE_DIR"
+
+# Kill any existing server
+if [[ -f "$PID_FILE" ]]; then
+  old_pid=$(cat "$PID_FILE")
+  kill "$old_pid" 2>/dev/null
+  rm -f "$PID_FILE"
+fi
+
+cd "$SCRIPT_DIR"
+
+# Resolve the harness PID (grandparent of this script).
+# $PPID is the ephemeral shell the harness spawned to run us — it dies
+# when this script exits. The harness itself is $PPID's parent.
+OWNER_PID="$(ps -o ppid= -p "$PPID" 2>/dev/null | tr -d ' ')"
+if [[ -z "$OWNER_PID" || "$OWNER_PID" == "1" ]]; then
+  OWNER_PID="$PPID"
+fi
+
+# Foreground mode for environments that reap detached/background processes.
+if [[ "$FOREGROUND" == "true" ]]; then
+  echo "$$" > "$PID_FILE"
+  env BRAINSTORM_DIR="$SESSION_DIR" BRAINSTORM_HOST="$BIND_HOST" BRAINSTORM_URL_HOST="$URL_HOST" BRAINSTORM_OWNER_PID="$OWNER_PID" node server.cjs
+  exit $?
+fi
+
+# Start server, capturing output to log file
+# Use nohup to survive shell exit; disown to remove from job table
+nohup env BRAINSTORM_DIR="$SESSION_DIR" BRAINSTORM_HOST="$BIND_HOST" BRAINSTORM_URL_HOST="$URL_HOST" BRAINSTORM_OWNER_PID="$OWNER_PID" node server.cjs > "$LOG_FILE" 2>&1 &
+SERVER_PID=$!
+disown "$SERVER_PID" 2>/dev/null
+echo "$SERVER_PID" > "$PID_FILE"
+
+# Wait for server-started message (check log file)
+for i in {1..50}; do
+  if grep -q "server-started" "$LOG_FILE" 2>/dev/null; then
+    # Verify server is still alive after a short window (catches process reapers)
+    alive="true"
+    for _ in {1..20}; do
+      if ! kill -0 "$SERVER_PID" 2>/dev/null; then
+        alive="false"
+        break
+      fi
+      sleep 0.1
+    done
+    if [[ "$alive" != "true" ]]; then
+      echo "{\"error\": \"Server started but was killed. Retry in a persistent terminal with: $SCRIPT_DIR/start-server.sh${PROJECT_DIR:+ --project-dir $PROJECT_DIR} --host $BIND_HOST --url-host $URL_HOST --foreground\"}"
+      exit 1
+    fi
+    grep "server-started" "$LOG_FILE" | head -1
+    exit 0
+  fi
+  sleep 0.1
+done
+
+# Timeout - server didn't start
+echo '{"error": "Server failed to start within 5 seconds"}'
+exit 1

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/scripts/stop-server.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Stop the brainstorm server and clean up
+# Usage: stop-server.sh <session_dir>
+#
+# Kills the server process. Only deletes session directory if it's
+# under /tmp (ephemeral). Persistent directories (.superpowers/) are
+# kept so mockups can be reviewed later.
+
+SESSION_DIR="$1"
+
+if [[ -z "$SESSION_DIR" ]]; then
+  echo '{"error": "Usage: stop-server.sh <session_dir>"}'
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+STATE_DIR="${SESSION_DIR}/state"
+PID_FILE="${STATE_DIR}/server.pid"
+
+if [[ -f "$PID_FILE" ]]; then
+  pid=$(cat "$PID_FILE")
+
+  # Try to stop gracefully, fallback to force if still alive
+  kill "$pid" 2>/dev/null || true
+
+  # Wait for graceful shutdown (up to ~2s)
+  for i in {1..20}; do
+    if ! kill -0 "$pid" 2>/dev/null; then
+      break
+    fi
+    sleep 0.1
+  done
+
+  # If still running, escalate to SIGKILL
+  if kill -0 "$pid" 2>/dev/null; then
+    kill -9 "$pid" 2>/dev/null || true
+
+    # Give SIGKILL a moment to take effect
+    sleep 0.1
+  fi
+
+  if kill -0 "$pid" 2>/dev/null; then
+    echo '{"status": "failed", "error": "process still running"}'
+    exit 1
+  fi
+
+  rm -f "$PID_FILE" "${STATE_DIR}/server.log"
+
+  # Only delete ephemeral /tmp directories
+  if [[ "$SESSION_DIR" == /tmp/* ]]; then
+    rm -rf "$SESSION_DIR"
+  fi
+
+  echo '{"status": "stopped"}'
+else
+  echo '{"status": "not_running"}'
+fi

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.
+
+**Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review spec document"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.
+
+    **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    | Category | What to Look For |
+    |----------|------------------|
+    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
+    | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
+    | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
+    | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
+    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
+    A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
+    interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
+    stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.
+
+    Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ## Spec Review
+
+    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
+
+    **Issues (if any):**
+    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]
+
+    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
+    - [suggestions for improvement]
+```
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations

data/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/visual-companion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
+# Visual Companion Guide
+
+Browser-based visual brainstorming companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and options.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Decide per-question, not per-session. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?**
+
+**Use the browser** when the content itself is visual:
+
+- **UI mockups** — wireframes, layouts, navigation structures, component designs
+- **Architecture diagrams** — system components, data flow, relationship maps
+- **Side-by-side visual comparisons** — comparing two layouts, two color schemes, two design directions
+- **Design polish** — when the question is about look and feel, spacing, visual hierarchy
+- **Spatial relationships** — state machines, flowcharts, entity relationships rendered as diagrams
+
+**Use the terminal** when the content is text or tabular:
+
+- **Requirements and scope questions** — "what does X mean?", "which features are in scope?"
+- **Conceptual A/B/C choices** — picking between approaches described in words
+- **Tradeoff lists** — pros/cons, comparison tables
+- **Technical decisions** — API design, data modeling, architectural approach selection
+- **Clarifying questions** — anything where the answer is words, not a visual preference
+
+A question *about* a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What kind of wizard do you want?" is conceptual — use the terminal. "Which of these wizard layouts feels right?" is visual — use the browser.
+
+## How It Works
+
+The server watches a directory for HTML files and serves the newest one to the browser. You write HTML content to `screen_dir`, the user sees it in their browser and can click to select options. Selections are recorded to `state_dir/events` that you read on your next turn.
+
+**Content fragments vs full documents:** If your HTML file starts with `<!DOCTYPE` or `<html`, the server serves it as-is (just injects the helper script). Otherwise, the server automatically wraps your content in the frame template — adding the header, CSS theme, selection indicator, and all interactive infrastructure. **Write content fragments by default.** Only write full documents when you need complete control over the page.
+
+## Starting a Session
+
+```bash
+# Start server with persistence (mockups saved to project)
+scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project
+
+# Returns: {"type":"server-started","port":52341,"url":"http://localhost:52341",
+#           "screen_dir":"/path/to/project/.superpowers/brainstorm/12345-1706000000/content",
+#           "state_dir":"/path/to/project/.superpowers/brainstorm/12345-1706000000/state"}
+```
+
+Save `screen_dir` and `state_dir` from the response. Tell user to open the URL.
+
+**Finding connection info:** The server writes its startup JSON to `$STATE_DIR/server-info`. If you launched the server in the background and didn't capture stdout, read that file to get the URL and port. When using `--project-dir`, check `<project>/.superpowers/brainstorm/` for the session directory.
+
+**Note:** Pass the project root as `--project-dir` so mockups persist in `.superpowers/brainstorm/` and survive server restarts. Without it, files go to `/tmp` and get cleaned up. Remind the user to add `.superpowers/` to `.gitignore` if it's not already there.
+
+**Launching the server by platform:**
+
+**Claude Code (macOS / Linux):**
+```bash
+# Default mode works — the script backgrounds the server itself
+scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project
+```
+
+**Claude Code (Windows):**
+```bash
+# Windows auto-detects and uses foreground mode, which blocks the tool call.
+# Use run_in_background: true on the Bash tool call so the server survives
+# across conversation turns.
+scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project
+```
+When calling this via the Bash tool, set `run_in_background: true`. Then read `$STATE_DIR/server-info` on the next turn to get the URL and port.
+
+**Codex:**
+```bash
+# Codex reaps background processes. The script auto-detects CODEX_CI and
+# switches to foreground mode. Run it normally — no extra flags needed.
+scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project
+```
+
+**Gemini CLI:**
+```bash
+# Use --foreground and set is_background: true on your shell tool call
+# so the process survives across turns
+scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project --foreground
+```
+
+**Other environments:** The server must keep running in the background across conversation turns. If your environment reaps detached processes, use `--foreground` and launch the command with your platform's background execution mechanism.
+
+If the URL is unreachable from your browser (common in remote/containerized setups), bind a non-loopback host:
+
+```bash
+scripts/start-server.sh \
+  --project-dir /path/to/project \
+  --host 0.0.0.0 \
+  --url-host localhost
+```
+
+Use `--url-host` to control what hostname is printed in the returned URL JSON.
+
+## The Loop
+
+1. **Check server is alive**, then **write HTML** to a new file in `screen_dir`:
+   - Before each write, check that `$STATE_DIR/server-info` exists. If it doesn't (or `$STATE_DIR/server-stopped` exists), the server has shut down — restart it with `start-server.sh` before continuing. The server auto-exits after 30 minutes of inactivity.
+   - Use semantic filenames: `platform.html`, `visual-style.html`, `layout.html`
+   - **Never reuse filenames** — each screen gets a fresh file
+   - Use Write tool — **never use cat/heredoc** (dumps noise into terminal)
+   - Server automatically serves the newest file
+
+2. **Tell user what to expect and end your turn:**
+   - Remind them of the URL (every step, not just first)
+   - Give a brief text summary of what's on screen (e.g., "Showing 3 layout options for the homepage")
+   - Ask them to respond in the terminal: "Take a look and let me know what you think. Click to select an option if you'd like."
+
+3. **On your next turn** — after the user responds in the terminal:
+   - Read `$STATE_DIR/events` if it exists — this contains the user's browser interactions (clicks, selections) as JSON lines
+   - Merge with the user's terminal text to get the full picture
+   - The terminal message is the primary feedback; `state_dir/events` provides structured interaction data
+
+4. **Iterate or advance** — if feedback changes current screen, write a new file (e.g., `layout-v2.html`). Only move to the next question when the current step is validated.
+
+5. **Unload when returning to terminal** — when the next step doesn't need the browser (e.g., a clarifying question, a tradeoff discussion), push a waiting screen to clear the stale content:
+
+   ```html
+   <!-- filename: waiting.html (or waiting-2.html, etc.) -->
+   <div style="display:flex;align-items:center;justify-content:center;min-height:60vh">
+     <p class="subtitle">Continuing in terminal...</p>
+   </div>
+   ```
+
+   This prevents the user from staring at a resolved choice while the conversation has moved on. When the next visual question comes up, push a new content file as usual.
+
+6. Repeat until done.
+
+## Writing Content Fragments
+
+Write just the content that goes inside the page. The server wraps it in the frame template automatically (header, theme CSS, selection indicator, and all interactive infrastructure).
+
+**Minimal example:**
+
+```html
+<h2>Which layout works better?</h2>
+<p class="subtitle">Consider readability and visual hierarchy</p>
+
+<div class="options">
+  <div class="option" data-choice="a" onclick="toggleSelect(this)">
+    <div class="letter">A</div>
+    <div class="content">
+      <h3>Single Column</h3>
+      <p>Clean, focused reading experience</p>
+    </div>
+  </div>
+  <div class="option" data-choice="b" onclick="toggleSelect(this)">
+    <div class="letter">B</div>
+    <div class="content">
+      <h3>Two Column</h3>
+      <p>Sidebar navigation with main content</p>
+    </div>
+  </div>
+</div>
+```
+
+That's it. No `<html>`, no CSS, no `<script>` tags needed. The server provides all of that.
+
+## CSS Classes Available
+
+The frame template provides these CSS classes for your content:
+
+### Options (A/B/C choices)
+
+```html
+<div class="options">
+  <div class="option" data-choice="a" onclick="toggleSelect(this)">
+    <div class="letter">A</div>
+    <div class="content">
+      <h3>Title</h3>
+      <p>Description</p>
+    </div>
+  </div>
+</div>
+```
+
+**Multi-select:** Add `data-multiselect` to the container to let users select multiple options. Each click toggles the item. The indicator bar shows the count.
+
+```html
+<div class="options" data-multiselect>
+  <!-- same option markup — users can select/deselect multiple -->
+</div>
+```
+
+### Cards (visual designs)
+
+```html
+<div class="cards">
+  <div class="card" data-choice="design1" onclick="toggleSelect(this)">
+    <div class="card-image"><!-- mockup content --></div>
+    <div class="card-body">
+      <h3>Name</h3>
+      <p>Description</p>
+    </div>
+  </div>
+</div>
+```
+
+### Mockup container
+
+```html
+<div class="mockup">
+  <div class="mockup-header">Preview: Dashboard Layout</div>
+  <div class="mockup-body"><!-- your mockup HTML --></div>
+</div>
+```
+
+### Split view (side-by-side)
+
+```html
+<div class="split">
+  <div class="mockup"><!-- left --></div>
+  <div class="mockup"><!-- right --></div>
+</div>
+```
+
+### Pros/Cons
+
+```html
+<div class="pros-cons">
+  <div class="pros"><h4>Pros</h4><ul><li>Benefit</li></ul></div>
+  <div class="cons"><h4>Cons</h4><ul><li>Drawback</li></ul></div>
+</div>
+```
+
+### Mock elements (wireframe building blocks)
+
+```html
+<div class="mock-nav">Logo | Home | About | Contact</div>
+<div style="display: flex;">
+  <div class="mock-sidebar">Navigation</div>
+  <div class="mock-content">Main content area</div>
+</div>
+<button class="mock-button">Action Button</button>
+<input class="mock-input" placeholder="Input field">
+<div class="placeholder">Placeholder area</div>
+```
+
+### Typography and sections
+
+- `h2` — page title
+- `h3` — section heading
+- `.subtitle` — secondary text below title
+- `.section` — content block with bottom margin
+- `.label` — small uppercase label text
+
+## Browser Events Format
+
+When the user clicks options in the browser, their interactions are recorded to `$STATE_DIR/events` (one JSON object per line). The file is cleared automatically when you push a new screen.
+
+```jsonl
+{"type":"click","choice":"a","text":"Option A - Simple Layout","timestamp":1706000101}
+{"type":"click","choice":"c","text":"Option C - Complex Grid","timestamp":1706000108}
+{"type":"click","choice":"b","text":"Option B - Hybrid","timestamp":1706000115}
+```
+
+The full event stream shows the user's exploration path — they may click multiple options before settling. The last `choice` event is typically the final selection, but the pattern of clicks can reveal hesitation or preferences worth asking about.
+
+If `$STATE_DIR/events` doesn't exist, the user didn't interact with the browser — use only their terminal text.
+
+## Design Tips
+
+- **Scale fidelity to the question** — wireframes for layout, polish for polish questions
+- **Explain the question on each page** — "Which layout feels more professional?" not just "Pick one"
+- **Iterate before advancing** — if feedback changes current screen, write a new version
+- **2-4 options max** per screen
+- **Use real content when it matters** — for a photography portfolio, use actual images (Unsplash). Placeholder content obscures design issues.
+- **Keep mockups simple** — focus on layout and structure, not pixel-perfect design
+
+## File Naming
+
+- Use semantic names: `platform.html`, `visual-style.html`, `layout.html`
+- Never reuse filenames — each screen must be a new file
+- For iterations: append version suffix like `layout-v2.html`, `layout-v3.html`
+- Server serves newest file by modification time
+
+## Cleaning Up
+
+```bash
+scripts/stop-server.sh $SESSION_DIR
+```
+
+If the session used `--project-dir`, mockup files persist in `.superpowers/brainstorm/` for later reference. Only `/tmp` sessions get deleted on stop.
+
+## Reference
+
+- Frame template (CSS reference): `scripts/frame-template.html`
+- Helper script (client-side): `scripts/helper.js`

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.

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

data/skills/superpowers/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+name: requesting-code-review
+description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, before merging, or when stuck - dispatches a separate subagent reviewer (distinct from inline code-review) to verify work meets requirements
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
+
+**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
+
+## When to Request Review
+
+**Mandatory:**
+- After each task in subagent-driven development
+- After completing major feature
+- Before merge to main
+
+**Optional but valuable:**
+- When stuck (fresh perspective)
+- Before refactoring (baseline check)
+- After fixing complex bug
+
+## How to Request
+
+**1. Get git SHAs:**
+```bash
+BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+```
+
+**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**
+
+Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+
+**3. Act on feedback:**
+- Fix Critical issues immediately
+- Fix Important issues before proceeding
+- Note Minor issues for later
+- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
+
+## Example
+
+```
+[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
+
+You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
+  Issues:
+    Important: Missing progress indicators
+    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
+  Assessment: Ready to proceed
+
+You: [Fix progress indicators]
+[Continue to Task 3]
+```
+
+## Integration with Workflows
+
+**Subagent-Driven Development:**
+- Review after EACH task
+- Catch issues before they compound
+- Fix before moving to next task
+
+**Executing Plans:**
+- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
+- Get feedback, apply, continue
+
+**Ad-Hoc Development:**
+- Review before merge
+- Review when stuck
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Skip review because "it's simple"
+- Ignore Critical issues
+- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
+- Argue with valid technical feedback
+
+**If reviewer wrong:**
+- Push back with technical reasoning
+- Show code/tests that prove it works
+- Request clarification
+
+See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

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.
+```

data/skills/superpowers/requesting-code-review/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: requesting-code-review
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "I just finished the auth refactor. Before I merge, can you review it?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the requesting-code-review skill
+      - the response uses the Task tool or external reviewer pattern
+      - the response checks the work meets the stated requirements
+  - prompt: "I completed the migration. Time to merge?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the requesting-code-review skill
+      - the response runs verification before approving merge
+  - prompt: "What's the weather in Tokyo?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the requesting-code-review skill

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
+
+Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
+
+## Source Material
+
+Extracted debugging framework from `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
+- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
+- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
+- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
+
+## Extraction Decisions
+
+**What to include:**
+- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
+- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
+- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
+- Concrete steps for each phase
+
+**What to leave out:**
+- Project-specific context
+- Repetitive variations of same rule
+- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
+
+## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
+
+1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
+2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
+3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
+4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
+5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
+6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
+
+## Bulletproofing Elements
+
+Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
+
+### Language Choices
+- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
+- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
+- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
+- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
+
+### Structural Defenses
+- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
+- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
+- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
+- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
+
+### Redundancy
+- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
+- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
+- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
+
+## Testing Approach
+
+Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
+
+### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
+- Simple bug, no time pressure
+- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
+
+### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
+- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
+- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
+
+### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
+- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
+- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
+
+### Test 4: Failed First Fix
+- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
+- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
+
+**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
+
+## Iterations
+
+### Initial Version
+- Complete 4-phase framework
+- Anti-patterns section
+- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
+
+### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
+- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
+- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
+- Prevents confusion between methodologies
+
+## Final Outcome
+
+Bulletproof skill that:
+- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
+- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
+- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
+- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
+- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
+- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
+- ✅ Ready for use
+
+## Key Insight
+
+**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Claude thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
+
+## Usage Example
+
+When encountering a bug:
+1. Load skill: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
+3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
+4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
+5. Complete all phases - root cause found
+
+**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
+**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
+
+---
+
+*Created: 2025-10-03*
+*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
+---
+name: systematic-debugging
+description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, unexpected behavior, build failure, or compile error, before proposing fixes. Also use when asked to debug, investigate, or diagnose an issue.
+---
+
+# Systematic Debugging
+
+## Overview
+
+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
+**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
+
+**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
+
+## The Iron Law
+
+```
+NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
+```
+
+If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use for ANY technical issue:
+- Test failures
+- Bugs in production
+- Unexpected behavior
+- Performance problems
+- Build failures
+- Integration issues
+
+**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
+- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
+- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
+- You've already tried multiple fixes
+- Previous fix didn't work
+- You don't fully understand the issue
+
+**Don't skip when:**
+- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
+- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
+- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
+
+## The Four Phases
+
+You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
+
+### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
+
+1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
+   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
+   - They often contain the exact solution
+   - Read stack traces completely
+   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
+
+2. **Reproduce Consistently**
+   - Can you trigger it reliably?
+   - What are the exact steps?
+   - Does it happen every time?
+   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
+
+3. **Check Recent Changes**
+   - What changed that could cause this?
+   - Git diff, recent commits
+   - New dependencies, config changes
+   - Environmental differences
+
+4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
+
+   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
+
+   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+   ```
+   For EACH component boundary:
+     - Log what data enters component
+     - Log what data exits component
+     - Verify environment/config propagation
+     - Check state at each layer
+
+   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
+   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
+   THEN investigate that specific component
+   ```
+
+   **Example (multi-layer system):**
+   ```bash
+   # Layer 1: Workflow
+   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
+   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
+
+   # Layer 2: Build script
+   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
+   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
+
+   # Layer 3: Signing script
+   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
+   security list-keychains
+   security find-identity -v
+
+   # Layer 4: Actual signing
+   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
+   ```
+
+   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
+
+5. **Trace Data Flow**
+
+   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+
+   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
+
+   **Quick version:**
+   - Where does bad value originate?
+   - What called this with bad value?
+   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
+   - Fix at source, not at symptom
+
+### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Find the pattern before fixing:**
+
+1. **Find Working Examples**
+   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
+   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
+
+2. **Compare Against References**
+   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
+   - Don't skim - read every line
+   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
+
+3. **Identify Differences**
+   - What's different between working and broken?
+   - List every difference, however small
+   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
+
+4. **Understand Dependencies**
+   - What other components does this need?
+   - What settings, config, environment?
+   - What assumptions does it make?
+
+### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+**Scientific method:**
+
+1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
+   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
+   - Write it down
+   - Be specific, not vague
+
+2. **Test Minimally**
+   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
+   - One variable at a time
+   - Don't fix multiple things at once
+
+3. **Verify Before Continuing**
+   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
+   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
+   - DON'T add more fixes on top
+
+4. **When You Don't Know**
+   - Say "I don't understand X"
+   - Don't pretend to know
+   - Ask for help
+   - Research more
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation
+
+**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
+
+1. **Create Failing Test Case**
+   - Simplest possible reproduction
+   - Automated test if possible
+   - One-off test script if no framework
+   - MUST have before fixing
+   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
+
+2. **Implement Single Fix**
+   - Address the root cause identified
+   - ONE change at a time
+   - No "while I'm here" improvements
+   - No bundled refactoring
+
+3. **Verify Fix**
+   - Test passes now?
+   - No other tests broken?
+   - Issue actually resolved?
+
+4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
+   - STOP
+   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
+   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
+   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
+   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
+
+5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
+
+   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
+   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+
+   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
+   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
+   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
+   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
+
+   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
+
+If you catch yourself thinking:
+- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
+- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
+- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
+- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
+- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
+- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
+- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
+- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
+- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
+
+## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
+
+**Watch for these redirections:**
+- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
+- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
+- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
+- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
+- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
+
+**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
+|-------|---------------|------------------|
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
+
+## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
+
+If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
+
+1. You've completed the process
+2. Document what you investigated
+3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
+4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
+
+**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
+
+## Supporting Techniques
+
+These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
+
+- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
+- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
+- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
+
+**Related skills:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/condition-based-waiting-example.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+// Complete implementation of condition-based waiting utilities
+// From: Lace test infrastructure improvements (2025-10-03)
+// Context: Fixed 15 flaky tests by replacing arbitrary timeouts
+
+import type { ThreadManager } from '~/threads/thread-manager';
+import type { LaceEvent, LaceEventType } from '~/threads/types';
+
+/**
+ * Wait for a specific event type to appear in thread
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param eventType - Type of event to wait for
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to the first matching event
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   await waitForEvent(threadManager, agentThreadId, 'TOOL_RESULT');
+ */
+export function waitForEvent(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  eventType: LaceEventType,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const event = events.find((e) => e.type === eventType);
+
+      if (event) {
+        resolve(event);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${eventType} event after ${timeoutMs}ms`));
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10); // Poll every 10ms for efficiency
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Wait for a specific number of events of a given type
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param eventType - Type of event to wait for
+ * @param count - Number of events to wait for
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to all matching events once count is reached
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   // Wait for 2 AGENT_MESSAGE events (initial response + continuation)
+ *   await waitForEventCount(threadManager, agentThreadId, 'AGENT_MESSAGE', 2);
+ */
+export function waitForEventCount(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  eventType: LaceEventType,
+  count: number,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent[]> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const matchingEvents = events.filter((e) => e.type === eventType);
+
+      if (matchingEvents.length >= count) {
+        resolve(matchingEvents);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(
+          new Error(
+            `Timeout waiting for ${count} ${eventType} events after ${timeoutMs}ms (got ${matchingEvents.length})`
+          )
+        );
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10);
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Wait for an event matching a custom predicate
+ * Useful when you need to check event data, not just type
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param predicate - Function that returns true when event matches
+ * @param description - Human-readable description for error messages
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to the first matching event
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   // Wait for TOOL_RESULT with specific ID
+ *   await waitForEventMatch(
+ *     threadManager,
+ *     agentThreadId,
+ *     (e) => e.type === 'TOOL_RESULT' && e.data.id === 'call_123',
+ *     'TOOL_RESULT with id=call_123'
+ *   );
+ */
+export function waitForEventMatch(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  predicate: (event: LaceEvent) => boolean,
+  description: string,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const event = events.find(predicate);
+
+      if (event) {
+        resolve(event);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${description} after ${timeoutMs}ms`));
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10);
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+// Usage example from actual debugging session:
+//
+// BEFORE (flaky):
+// ---------------
+// const messagePromise = agent.sendMessage('Execute tools');
+// await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 300)); // Hope tools start in 300ms
+// agent.abort();
+// await messagePromise;
+// await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 50));  // Hope results arrive in 50ms
+// expect(toolResults.length).toBe(2);         // Fails randomly
+//
+// AFTER (reliable):
+// ----------------
+// const messagePromise = agent.sendMessage('Execute tools');
+// await waitForEventCount(threadManager, threadId, 'TOOL_CALL', 2); // Wait for tools to start
+// agent.abort();
+// await messagePromise;
+// await waitForEventCount(threadManager, threadId, 'TOOL_RESULT', 2); // Wait for results
+// expect(toolResults.length).toBe(2); // Always succeeds
+//
+// Result: 60% pass rate → 100%, 40% faster execution

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/condition-based-waiting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# Condition-Based Waiting
+
+## Overview
+
+Flaky tests often guess at timing with arbitrary delays. This creates race conditions where tests pass on fast machines but fail under load or in CI.
+
+**Core principle:** Wait for the actual condition you care about, not a guess about how long it takes.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Test uses setTimeout/sleep?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Testing timing behavior?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Document WHY timeout needed" [shape=box];
+    "Use condition-based waiting" [shape=box];
+
+    "Test uses setTimeout/sleep?" -> "Testing timing behavior?" [label="yes"];
+    "Testing timing behavior?" -> "Document WHY timeout needed" [label="yes"];
+    "Testing timing behavior?" -> "Use condition-based waiting" [label="no"];
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+- Tests have arbitrary delays (`setTimeout`, `sleep`, `time.sleep()`)
+- Tests are flaky (pass sometimes, fail under load)
+- Tests timeout when run in parallel
+- Waiting for async operations to complete
+
+**Don't use when:**
+- Testing actual timing behavior (debounce, throttle intervals)
+- Always document WHY if using arbitrary timeout
+
+## Core Pattern
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ BEFORE: Guessing at timing
+await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 50));
+const result = getResult();
+expect(result).toBeDefined();
+
+// ✅ AFTER: Waiting for condition
+await waitFor(() => getResult() !== undefined);
+const result = getResult();
+expect(result).toBeDefined();
+```
+
+## Quick Patterns
+
+| Scenario | Pattern |
+|----------|---------|
+| Wait for event | `waitFor(() => events.find(e => e.type === 'DONE'))` |
+| Wait for state | `waitFor(() => machine.state === 'ready')` |
+| Wait for count | `waitFor(() => items.length >= 5)` |
+| Wait for file | `waitFor(() => fs.existsSync(path))` |
+| Complex condition | `waitFor(() => obj.ready && obj.value > 10)` |
+
+## Implementation
+
+Generic polling function:
+```typescript
+async function waitFor<T>(
+  condition: () => T | undefined | null | false,
+  description: string,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<T> {
+  const startTime = Date.now();
+
+  while (true) {
+    const result = condition();
+    if (result) return result;
+
+    if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+      throw new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${description} after ${timeoutMs}ms`);
+    }
+
+    await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 10)); // Poll every 10ms
+  }
+}
+```
+
+See `condition-based-waiting-example.ts` in this directory for complete implementation with domain-specific helpers (`waitForEvent`, `waitForEventCount`, `waitForEventMatch`) from actual debugging session.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**❌ Polling too fast:** `setTimeout(check, 1)` - wastes CPU
+**✅ Fix:** Poll every 10ms
+
+**❌ No timeout:** Loop forever if condition never met
+**✅ Fix:** Always include timeout with clear error
+
+**❌ Stale data:** Cache state before loop
+**✅ Fix:** Call getter inside loop for fresh data
+
+## When Arbitrary Timeout IS Correct
+
+```typescript
+// Tool ticks every 100ms - need 2 ticks to verify partial output
+await waitForEvent(manager, 'TOOL_STARTED'); // First: wait for condition
+await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 200));   // Then: wait for timed behavior
+// 200ms = 2 ticks at 100ms intervals - documented and justified
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+1. First wait for triggering condition
+2. Based on known timing (not guessing)
+3. Comment explaining WHY
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging session (2025-10-03):
+- Fixed 15 flaky tests across 3 files
+- Pass rate: 60% → 100%
+- Execution time: 40% faster
+- No more race conditions

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/defense-in-depth.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+# Defense-in-Depth Validation
+
+## Overview
+
+When you fix a bug caused by invalid data, adding validation at one place feels sufficient. But that single check can be bypassed by different code paths, refactoring, or mocks.
+
+**Core principle:** Validate at EVERY layer data passes through. Make the bug structurally impossible.
+
+## Why Multiple Layers
+
+Single validation: "We fixed the bug"
+Multiple layers: "We made the bug impossible"
+
+Different layers catch different cases:
+- Entry validation catches most bugs
+- Business logic catches edge cases
+- Environment guards prevent context-specific dangers
+- Debug logging helps when other layers fail
+
+## The Four Layers
+
+### Layer 1: Entry Point Validation
+**Purpose:** Reject obviously invalid input at API boundary
+
+```typescript
+function createProject(name: string, workingDirectory: string) {
+  if (!workingDirectory || workingDirectory.trim() === '') {
+    throw new Error('workingDirectory cannot be empty');
+  }
+  if (!existsSync(workingDirectory)) {
+    throw new Error(`workingDirectory does not exist: ${workingDirectory}`);
+  }
+  if (!statSync(workingDirectory).isDirectory()) {
+    throw new Error(`workingDirectory is not a directory: ${workingDirectory}`);
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 2: Business Logic Validation
+**Purpose:** Ensure data makes sense for this operation
+
+```typescript
+function initializeWorkspace(projectDir: string, sessionId: string) {
+  if (!projectDir) {
+    throw new Error('projectDir required for workspace initialization');
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 3: Environment Guards
+**Purpose:** Prevent dangerous operations in specific contexts
+
+```typescript
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  // In tests, refuse git init outside temp directories
+  if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test') {
+    const normalized = normalize(resolve(directory));
+    const tmpDir = normalize(resolve(tmpdir()));
+
+    if (!normalized.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
+      throw new Error(
+        `Refusing git init outside temp dir during tests: ${directory}`
+      );
+    }
+  }
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+### Layer 4: Debug Instrumentation
+**Purpose:** Capture context for forensics
+
+```typescript
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  const stack = new Error().stack;
+  logger.debug('About to git init', {
+    directory,
+    cwd: process.cwd(),
+    stack,
+  });
+  // ... proceed
+}
+```
+
+## Applying the Pattern
+
+When you find a bug:
+
+1. **Trace the data flow** - Where does bad value originate? Where used?
+2. **Map all checkpoints** - List every point data passes through
+3. **Add validation at each layer** - Entry, business, environment, debug
+4. **Test each layer** - Try to bypass layer 1, verify layer 2 catches it
+
+## Example from Session
+
+Bug: Empty `projectDir` caused `git init` in source code
+
+**Data flow:**
+1. Test setup → empty string
+2. `Project.create(name, '')`
+3. `WorkspaceManager.createWorkspace('')`
+4. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()`
+
+**Four layers added:**
+- Layer 1: `Project.create()` validates not empty/exists/writable
+- Layer 2: `WorkspaceManager` validates projectDir not empty
+- Layer 3: `WorktreeManager` refuses git init outside tmpdir in tests
+- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
+
+**Result:** All 1847 tests passed, bug impossible to reproduce
+
+## Key Insight
+
+All four layers were necessary. During testing, each layer caught bugs the others missed:
+- Different code paths bypassed entry validation
+- Mocks bypassed business logic checks
+- Edge cases on different platforms needed environment guards
+- Debug logging identified structural misuse
+
+**Don't stop at one validation point.** Add checks at every layer.

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: systematic-debugging
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "This test has been failing for two days and I've tried four different fixes. Help."
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the systematic-debugging skill
+      - the response refuses to propose a fix before root cause is established
+      - the response runs root-cause investigation per the Iron Law
+  - prompt: "Build is failing with no clear error. What now?"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the systematic-debugging skill
+      - the response addresses Phase 1 (root cause) before proposing fixes
+  - prompt: "What is the population of Toronto?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the systematic-debugging skill

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/find-polluter.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Bisection script to find which test creates unwanted files/state
+# Usage: ./find-polluter.sh <file_or_dir_to_check> <test_pattern>
+# Example: ./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
+
+set -e
+
+if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
+  echo "Usage: $0 <file_to_check> <test_pattern>"
+  echo "Example: $0 '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+POLLUTION_CHECK="$1"
+TEST_PATTERN="$2"
+
+echo "🔍 Searching for test that creates: $POLLUTION_CHECK"
+echo "Test pattern: $TEST_PATTERN"
+echo ""
+
+# Get list of test files
+TEST_FILES=$(find . -path "$TEST_PATTERN" | sort)
+TOTAL=$(echo "$TEST_FILES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+
+echo "Found $TOTAL test files"
+echo ""
+
+COUNT=0
+for TEST_FILE in $TEST_FILES; do
+  COUNT=$((COUNT + 1))
+
+  # Skip if pollution already exists
+  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+    echo "⚠️  Pollution already exists before test $COUNT/$TOTAL"
+    echo "   Skipping: $TEST_FILE"
+    continue
+  fi
+
+  echo "[$COUNT/$TOTAL] Testing: $TEST_FILE"
+
+  # Run the test
+  npm test "$TEST_FILE" > /dev/null 2>&1 || true
+
+  # Check if pollution appeared
+  if [ -e "$POLLUTION_CHECK" ]; then
+    echo ""
+    echo "🎯 FOUND POLLUTER!"
+    echo "   Test: $TEST_FILE"
+    echo "   Created: $POLLUTION_CHECK"
+    echo ""
+    echo "Pollution details:"
+    ls -la "$POLLUTION_CHECK"
+    echo ""
+    echo "To investigate:"
+    echo "  npm test $TEST_FILE    # Run just this test"
+    echo "  cat $TEST_FILE         # Review test code"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+echo ""
+echo "✅ No polluter found - all tests clean!"
+exit 0

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/root-cause-tracing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+# Root Cause Tracing
+
+## Overview
+
+Bugs often manifest deep in the call stack (git init in wrong directory, file created in wrong location, database opened with wrong path). Your instinct is to fix where the error appears, but that's treating a symptom.
+
+**Core principle:** Trace backward through the call chain until you find the original trigger, then fix at the source.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Bug appears deep in stack?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Can trace backwards?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Fix at symptom point" [shape=box];
+    "Trace to original trigger" [shape=box];
+    "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth" [shape=box];
+
+    "Bug appears deep in stack?" -> "Can trace backwards?" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Trace to original trigger" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Fix at symptom point" [label="no - dead end"];
+    "Trace to original trigger" -> "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth";
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+- Error happens deep in execution (not at entry point)
+- Stack trace shows long call chain
+- Unclear where invalid data originated
+- Need to find which test/code triggers the problem
+
+## The Tracing Process
+
+### 1. Observe the Symptom
+```
+Error: git init failed in ~/project/packages/core
+```
+
+### 2. Find Immediate Cause
+**What code directly causes this?**
+```typescript
+await execFileAsync('git', ['init'], { cwd: projectDir });
+```
+
+### 3. Ask: What Called This?
+```typescript
+WorktreeManager.createSessionWorktree(projectDir, sessionId)
+  → called by Session.initializeWorkspace()
+  → called by Session.create()
+  → called by test at Project.create()
+```
+
+### 4. Keep Tracing Up
+**What value was passed?**
+- `projectDir = ''` (empty string!)
+- Empty string as `cwd` resolves to `process.cwd()`
+- That's the source code directory!
+
+### 5. Find Original Trigger
+**Where did empty string come from?**
+```typescript
+const context = setupCoreTest(); // Returns { tempDir: '' }
+Project.create('name', context.tempDir); // Accessed before beforeEach!
+```
+
+## Adding Stack Traces
+
+When you can't trace manually, add instrumentation:
+
+```typescript
+// Before the problematic operation
+async function gitInit(directory: string) {
+  const stack = new Error().stack;
+  console.error('DEBUG git init:', {
+    directory,
+    cwd: process.cwd(),
+    nodeEnv: process.env.NODE_ENV,
+    stack,
+  });
+
+  await execFileAsync('git', ['init'], { cwd: directory });
+}
+```
+
+**Critical:** Use `console.error()` in tests (not logger - may not show)
+
+**Run and capture:**
+```bash
+npm test 2>&1 | grep 'DEBUG git init'
+```
+
+**Analyze stack traces:**
+- Look for test file names
+- Find the line number triggering the call
+- Identify the pattern (same test? same parameter?)
+
+## Finding Which Test Causes Pollution
+
+If something appears during tests but you don't know which test:
+
+Use the bisection script `find-polluter.sh` in this directory:
+
+```bash
+./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'
+```
+
+Runs tests one-by-one, stops at first polluter. See script for usage.
+
+## Real Example: Empty projectDir
+
+**Symptom:** `.git` created in `packages/core/` (source code)
+
+**Trace chain:**
+1. `git init` runs in `process.cwd()` ← empty cwd parameter
+2. WorktreeManager called with empty projectDir
+3. Session.create() passed empty string
+4. Test accessed `context.tempDir` before beforeEach
+5. setupCoreTest() returns `{ tempDir: '' }` initially
+
+**Root cause:** Top-level variable initialization accessing empty value
+
+**Fix:** Made tempDir a getter that throws if accessed before beforeEach
+
+**Also added defense-in-depth:**
+- Layer 1: Project.create() validates directory
+- Layer 2: WorkspaceManager validates not empty
+- Layer 3: NODE_ENV guard refuses git init outside tmpdir
+- Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init
+
+## Key Principle
+
+```dot
+digraph principle {
+    "Found immediate cause" [shape=ellipse];
+    "Can trace one level up?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Trace backwards" [shape=box];
+    "Is this the source?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Fix at source" [shape=box];
+    "Add validation at each layer" [shape=box];
+    "Bug impossible" [shape=doublecircle];
+    "NEVER fix just the symptom" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+    "Found immediate cause" -> "Can trace one level up?";
+    "Can trace one level up?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="yes"];
+    "Can trace one level up?" -> "NEVER fix just the symptom" [label="no"];
+    "Trace backwards" -> "Is this the source?";
+    "Is this the source?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="no - keeps going"];
+    "Is this the source?" -> "Fix at source" [label="yes"];
+    "Fix at source" -> "Add validation at each layer";
+    "Add validation at each layer" -> "Bug impossible";
+}
+```
+
+**NEVER fix just where the error appears.** Trace back to find the original trigger.
+
+## Stack Trace Tips
+
+**In tests:** Use `console.error()` not logger - logger may be suppressed
+**Before operation:** Log before the dangerous operation, not after it fails
+**Include context:** Directory, cwd, environment variables, timestamps
+**Capture stack:** `new Error().stack` shows complete call chain
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging session (2025-10-03):
+- Found root cause through 5-level trace
+- Fixed at source (getter validation)
+- Added 4 layers of defense
+- 1847 tests passed, zero pollution

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
+
+You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
+
+1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
+2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
+3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
+4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
+5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
+6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
+
+Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
+- Error rate: 100%
+- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
+- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
+
+Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
+
+You quickly check the logs and see:
+```
+PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
+```
+
+You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
+
+**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
+1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
+2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
+3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
+4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
+5. Then form hypothesis and test
+
+**But the quick fix:**
+- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
+- Deploy: 3 minutes
+- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
+- Every minute costs $15k
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
+- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
+- Another $525k lost during investigation
+- Manager will be furious
+- You look slow/incompetent
+
+**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
+- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
+- Stop the bleeding immediately
+- Investigate root cause after service restored
+- Save $450k vs Option A
+
+**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
+- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
+- If nothing obvious, add retry
+- Investigate properly after restore
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
+
+The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
+```
+Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
+Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
+```
+
+**What you've tried:**
+1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
+2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
+3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
+4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
+5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
+6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
+
+You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
+
+**Two approaches:**
+
+**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
+- Stop guessing with timeouts
+- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
+- Understand WHY status isn't updating
+- Could take another 2-3 hours
+- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
+- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
+
+**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
+- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
+- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
+- Commit and go to dinner
+- File ticket to investigate later
+- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
+- Another 2-3 hours minimum
+- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
+- Miss dinner entirely
+- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
+- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
+
+**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
+- Stops the immediate bleeding
+- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
+- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
+- 4 hours not completely wasted
+- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
+
+**C) Quick investigation first**
+- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
+- If not obvious, use timeout solution
+- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
+- "Balanced" approach
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.

data/skills/superpowers/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're in a Zoom call with:
+- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
+- The tech lead
+- Two other developers
+
+You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
+
+**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
+
+**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
+
+**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
+
+**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
+
+**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
+
+Your systematic debugging skill says:
+- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
+- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
+- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
+
+But:
+- Senior has way more experience
+- Tech lead approved the approach
+- Everyone wants to end the call
+- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
+- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
+- Insist on following systematic process
+- Everyone frustrated with you
+- Senior engineer annoyed
+- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
+- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
+- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
+
+**B) Go along with senior's fix**
+- They have 10 years experience
+- Tech lead approved
+- Entire team wants to move forward
+- Being a "team player"
+- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
+
+**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
+- Quick 5-minute doc check
+- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
+- Shows you did "due diligence"
+- Doesn't waste too much time
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.

data/skills/superpowers/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: writing-plans
+description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code. Also triggers on: "write me a plan", "help me plan out", "create an implementation plan", "map out the implementation", or any request to produce a structured plan before coding begins.
+---
+
+# Writing Plans
+
+## Overview
+
+Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
+
+Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
+
+**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.
+
+**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+
+## Scope Check
+
+If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+
+## File Structure
+
+Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+
+- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
+- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
+- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
+- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+
+This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
+
+## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
+
+**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
+- "Write the failing test" - step
+- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
+- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
+- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
+- "Commit" - step
+
+## Plan Document Header
+
+**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
+
+```markdown
+# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
+
+**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
+
+**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
+
+---
+```
+
+## Task Structure
+
+````markdown
+### Task N: [Component Name]
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
+- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
+- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
+
+```python
+def test_specific_behavior():
+    result = function(input)
+    assert result == expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
+
+```python
+def function(input):
+    return expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: PASS
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
+
+```bash
+git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
+git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
+```
+````
+
+## No Placeholders
+
+Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
+- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
+- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
+- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
+- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
+- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
+- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
+
+## Remember
+- Exact file paths always
+- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
+- Exact commands with expected output
+- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
+
+## Self-Review
+
+After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
+
+**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
+
+**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
+
+**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
+
+If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
+
+## Execution Handoff
+
+After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
+
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
+
+**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
+
+**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
+
+**Which approach?"**
+
+**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
+- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
+
+**If Inline Execution chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
+- Batch execution with checkpoints for review

data/skills/superpowers/writing-plans/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: writing-plans
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "I need to add session export. We've talked through scope. Now plan it."
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the writing-plans skill
+      - the response produces a multi-step plan with verification checkpoints
+      - the response identifies files to create or modify with explicit paths
+  - prompt: "Plan the v1.14 release that adds workspace templates"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the writing-plans skill
+      - the response breaks the work into testable steps
+  - prompt: "What time zone is Buenos Aires in?"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the writing-plans skill

data/skills/superpowers/writing-plans/plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Plan Document Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify the plan is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
+
+**Dispatch after:** The complete plan is written.
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review plan document"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan is complete and ready for implementation.
+
+    **Plan to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH]
+    **Spec for reference:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    | Category | What to Look For |
+    |----------|------------------|
+    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, incomplete tasks, missing steps |
+    | Spec Alignment | Plan covers spec requirements, no major scope creep |
+    | Task Decomposition | Tasks have clear boundaries, steps are actionable |
+    | Buildability | Could an engineer follow this plan without getting stuck? |
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation.**
+    An implementer building the wrong thing or getting stuck is an issue.
+    Minor wording, stylistic preferences, and "nice to have" suggestions are not.
+
+    Approve unless there are serious gaps — missing requirements from the spec,
+    contradictory steps, placeholder content, or tasks so vague they can't be acted on.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ## Plan Review
+
+    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
+
+    **Issues (if any):**
+    - [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for implementation]
+
+    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
+    - [suggestions for improvement]
+```
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations

data/skills/vercel-labs/ATTRIBUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+# Attribution
+
+Skills in this directory are vendored from https://github.com/vercel-labs/skills
+License: see LICENSE
+Vendored: 2026-05-17

data/skills/vercel-labs/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+404: Not Found

data/skills/vercel-labs/reviewing-web-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+name: reviewing-web-design
+description: Fetch Vercel's live web-interface-guidelines and check UI code against them. Use when asked to "review my UI against web interface guidelines", "check accessibility", "audit design against Vercel guidelines", "review UX compliance", "check my site against Vercel best practices", or "run web-interface-guidelines on my components".
+metadata:
+  author: vercel
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  argument-hint: <file-or-pattern>
+---
+
+# Web Interface Guidelines
+
+Review files for compliance with Web Interface Guidelines.
+
+## How It Works
+
+1. Fetch the latest guidelines from the source URL below
+2. Read the specified files (or prompt user for files/pattern)
+3. Check against all rules in the fetched guidelines
+4. Output findings in the terse `file:line` format
+
+## Guidelines Source
+
+Fetch fresh guidelines before each review:
+
+```
+https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vercel-labs/web-interface-guidelines/main/command.md
+```
+
+Use WebFetch to retrieve the latest rules. The fetched content contains all the rules and output format instructions.
+
+If the URL returns a non-200 response or is unreachable, inform the user that the guidelines could not be fetched and ask them to paste the rules manually or try again later. Do not proceed with a review using cached or assumed rules.
+
+## Usage
+
+When a user provides a file or pattern argument:
+1. Fetch guidelines from the source URL above
+2. Read the specified files
+3. Apply all rules from the fetched guidelines
+4. Output findings using the format specified in the guidelines
+
+If no files specified, ask the user which files to review.

data/skills/vercel-labs/reviewing-web-design/eval.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+skill: reviewing-web-design
+tasks:
+  - prompt: "Review my landing page UI against best-practice design guidelines"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the reviewing-web-design skill
+      - the response evaluates against the Web Interface Guidelines
+      - the response addresses accessibility, visual hierarchy, or interaction quality
+  - prompt: "Audit accessibility on this React form"
+    grader:
+      - the response invokes the reviewing-web-design skill
+      - the response covers ARIA, semantic HTML, or contrast
+  - prompt: "Help me write a SQL query"
+    grader:
+      - the response does NOT invoke the reviewing-web-design skill

docker-compose.yml

@@ -15,7 +15,11 @@ services:
       - /opt/projects:/opt/projects:rw
       - ./secrets/boocode_gitea:/root/.ssh/id_ed25519:ro
       - ./data:/data
-      - /opt/skills:/data/skills
+      # v1.13.12: override-mount /opt/skills:/data/skills removed. Skill
+      # library now lives in the boocode repo at data/skills/, audited
+      # per-batch. The host-level /opt/skills is preserved for other tools
+      # (Claude Code, etc.) but boocode reads only from its repo-local
+      # data/skills/ tree.
       # v1.12: bind-mount BOOCHAT.md so host-side edits land in the container
       # without a rebuild. system-prompt.ts mtime-watch picks up changes on the
       # next chat turn. Read-only — the chat surface must never write here.

openspec/changes/v1.13.12-skills-audit/audit-notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# v1.13.12 — skills audit pass
+
+Audit of 26 skills vendored from `/home/samkintop/opt/skills/` into `/opt/boocode/data/skills/`. Each sorted into one of four buckets per the Codeminer42 rules→recipes split.
+
+## Deviations from the batch spec
+
+| Spec said | Reality | Resolution |
+|---|---|---|
+| `/opt/boocode/skills/` is the audit target | Skills directory is `/opt/boocode/data/skills/` (per `services/skills.ts:19` `SKILLS_ROOT = '/data/skills'`) | Vendored to the correct path |
+| `/opt/boocode/AGENTS.md` for bucket-(a) rule additions | `data/AGENTS.md` is an agent registry (`## H2` per agent with frontmatter), not a rules file | Bucket-(a) rules go to `BOOCHAT.md` (the container guidance file the chat agent reads) instead |
+| "7 vendored v1.12 skills" exist to audit | Zero SKILL.md ever committed; `data/skills/` was empty | Vendored all 26 from `/home/samkintop/opt/skills/` in this batch (vendor + audit combined) |
+| `data/` content tracked in git | `.gitignore` excluded all of `data/` | Added negation patterns (`data/*` + `!data/AGENTS.md` + `!data/skills/`) so audit work shows up in git |
+| Container reads `data/skills/` from the boocode repo | `docker-compose.yml:18` had `- /opt/skills:/data/skills` override mount — container actually read from host-level `/opt/skills/`, ignoring repo `data/skills/` | Removed the override mount. Skill library now lives in `data/skills/` (repo-tracked, per-batch auditable). Host `/opt/skills/` preserved untouched for other tools (Claude Code, etc.). 1-line deviation from spec's "zero code change" claim — necessary to make the spec's intent actually take effect |
+
+## Bucket tally
+
+| Bucket | Action | Count |
+|---|---|---|
+| (a) | Move to BOOCHAT.md as always-true rule | 1 |
+| (b) | Keep as recipe, apply Anthropic conventions | 14 |
+| (c) | Keep + move bulk to `references/` (SKILL.md > 500 lines) | 0 |
+| (d) | Delete (duplicates Claude native capability or doesn't fit BooCode) | 11 |
+| **Total** | | **26** |
+
+No skill exceeded the 500-line ceiling — bucket (c) is empty. Longest survivor: `systematic-debugging` at 296 lines.
+
+## Per-skill decisions
+
+| Skill (path) | Lines | Bucket | Disposition | Rationale |
+|---|---:|:---:|---|---|
+| `anthropics/agent-development` | 196 | (b) | Keep; rename → `developing-agents` | BooCode-specific value (manages `data/AGENTS.md` tier-2 registry) |
+| `anthropics/claude-md-improver` | 180 | (d) | Delete | Overlaps `boocode-guidance-improver` (more specific) |
+| `anthropics/frontend-design` | 42 | (b) | Keep; rename → `designing-frontends` | Concise UI design guidance, no overlap |
+| `anthropics-knowledge-work/code-review` | 118 | (b) | Keep; rename → `reviewing-code` | Generic code review process distinct from `receiving-` / `requesting-code-review` |
+| `anthropics-knowledge-work/task-management` | 91 | (d) | Delete | `user-invocable: false`; duplicates BooCode's TodoWrite/TaskCreate native capability |
+| `asyrafhussin/react-vite-best-practices` | 182 | (b) | Keep; rename → `optimizing-react-vite` | Matches BooCode's stack (Vite, not Next.js) |
+| `boocode/boocode-guidance-improver` | 167 | (b) | Keep; rename → `improving-boocode-guidance` | BooCode-specific 10-dimension rubric for `CLAUDE.md`/`BOOCHAT.md`/`BOOCODER.md`/`AGENTS.md` |
+| `mattpocock/diagnose` | 117 | (b) | Keep; rename → `diagnosing-bugs` | Complement to `systematic-debugging`: focus on building a feedback loop |
+| `mattpocock/grill-me` | 20 | (b) | Keep; rename → `grilling-plans` | Plan stress-testing |
+| `mattpocock/grill-with-docs` | 98 | (d) | Delete | Requires `CONTEXT.md` and `docs/adr/` that BooCode doesn't have |
+| `mattpocock/handoff` | 17 | (d) | Delete | BooCode is single-user; no agent handoff scenario |
+| `mattpocock/improve-codebase-architecture` | 71 | (d) | Delete | Requires `CONTEXT.md` and `docs/adr/` |
+| `mattpocock/to-issues` | 83 | (d) | Delete | BooCode uses `openspec/changes/`, not an issue tracker |
+| `mattpocock/to-prd` | 76 | (d) | Delete | Same — no issue tracker |
+| `mattpocock/write-a-skill` | 121 | (b) | Keep; rename → `writing-skills` | Authoring new skills for this very system |
+| `mattpocock/zoom-out` | 7 | (d) | Delete | Claude does this natively when asked; 7-line skill is overhead |
+| `superpowers/brainstorming` | 164 | (b) | Keep (already gerund) | Before-features creative-work process |
+| `superpowers/receiving-code-review` | 213 | (b) | Keep (already gerund) | Sam reviews everything; process for handling feedback |
+| `superpowers/requesting-code-review` | 103 | (b) | Keep (already gerund) | Before-merge verification |
+| `superpowers/systematic-debugging` | 296 | (b) | Keep (already gerund) | Comprehensive bug-fix discipline (root-cause-first) |
+| `superpowers/using-superpowers` | 117 | (d) | Delete | Meta-skill about skill discovery; Claude does discovery natively |
+| `superpowers/verification-before-completion` | 139 | (a) | Migrate rule to `BOOCHAT.md`, delete skill dir | Always-true rule: evidence before assertions. Belongs 100% present, not 6% invoked |
+| `superpowers/writing-plans` | 152 | (b) | Keep (already gerund) | Maps to BooCode's `openspec/changes/` workflow |
+| `vercel-labs/find-skills` | 142 | (d) | Delete | Skill discovery — Claude does this natively |
+| `vercel-labs/react-best-practices` | 149 | (d) | Delete | Next.js focus; BooCode uses Vite (asyrafhussin's version is the fit) |
+| `vercel-labs/web-design-guidelines` | 39 | (b) | Keep; rename → `reviewing-web-design` | UI compliance review |
+
+## Bucket-(a) migration text
+
+Single rule extracted from `superpowers/verification-before-completion` (139 lines → ~3 lines in BOOCHAT.md):
+
+> **Don't claim work is complete without verifying.** Run the relevant command (test, build, smoke) and confirm the expected output before reporting success. Evidence before assertions catches regressions you'd otherwise miss.
+
+The 139-line process content does not move to BOOCHAT.md — the rule itself is what needs to be 100% present. Process detail is recoverable from the upstream repo if anyone wants to read it later.
+
+## Verification protocol coverage
+
+| Step | Owner | Status |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1. Discovery (paste SKILL.md, check first-200-char triggering) | Sam — fresh Claude.ai chat per skill | Pending |
+| 2. Logic (paste realistic task, check skill recognizes) | Sam — fresh Claude.ai chat | Pending |
+| 3. Edge Case (paste boundary task, check correct invoke/decline) | Sam — fresh Claude.ai chat | Pending |
+| 4. Architecture Refinement (paste skill + chats, ask for critique) | Sam — fresh Claude.ai chat | Pending |
+| 5. `skillgrade --smoke` (5 trials per skill) | Sam — host install `npm i -g skillgrade` first | Pending |
+
+Eval.yaml files written per surviving skill (14 files) so the `skillgrade --smoke` runs are mechanical once `skillgrade` is installed.
+
+## skillgrade scope correction
+
+The `eval.yaml` stubs authored in the prior session use a flat `tasks: [{prompt, grader: [list]}]` shape that does not validate against skillgrade's canonical schema (canonical needs `name`, `instruction`, `workspace`, structured `graders` with `type: deterministic | llm_rubric`, `run` shell script, `weight`, plus a Docker `provider` block). Rewriting all 14 in the canonical format is out of scope for this batch — each needs Docker workspace setup and grader scripts that capture skill-output correctness. Filed as a follow-up: **v1.13.13 — skillgrade eval.yaml canonical rewrite + first quantitative pass**.
+
+The smoke-results column in the table below is `n/a*` for that reason. The 4-step qualitative protocol still runs (via the agent team in this batch) and surfaces the structural issues that quantitative trials would have caught anyway.
+
+## 4-step protocol findings (agent-team batch)
+
+Each surviving skill was assessed by one of 5 parallel teammates (alpha / bravo / charlie / delta / echo) running the mgechev/skills-best-practices 4-step protocol: Discovery → Logic → Edge Case → self-Architecture-Refinement. Teammates wrote per-agent findings to `/tmp/audit-<name>.md`; the table here aggregates.
+
+Ratings shorthand: D=Discovery, L=Logic, E=Edge Case (each 1-5).
+
+| Skill | Auditor | D / L / E | 4-step verdict | Fix applied |
+|---|---|:---:|---|---|
+| `anthropics/designing-frontends` | alpha | 5 / 5 / 3 | Strong primary triggers; over-broad with "artifacts, posters" (not code targets) | Removed "artifacts, posters" from description trigger list |
+| `anthropics/developing-agents` | alpha | 5 / 5 / 4 | Sharp triggering; stale "(as of v1.11.x)" tag and broken `inference.ts:721-731` reference (actual code is at `stream-phase.ts:403-406`) | Updated stale version tag + cross-reference |
+| `anthropics-knowledge-work/reviewing-code` | alpha | 4 / 4 / 3 | Good for explicit PR/diff triggers; dead `CONNECTORS.md` cross-reference (file doesn't exist) | Removed broken cross-reference |
+| `mattpocock/diagnosing-bugs` | bravo | 5 / 5 / 4 | Strong; missing colloquial phrasings like "not working" / "something wrong" | Added informal trigger phrases |
+| `mattpocock/grilling-plans` | bravo | 3 / 4 / 3 | Trigger coverage too narrow — only "grill me" reliably fires; structural risk: mandatory `ask_user_input` tool may not exist in BooCode's tool registry (flagged but not patched — needs env verification) | Added "poke holes", "challenge my design", "play devil's advocate", "what am I missing" triggers |
+| `mattpocock/writing-skills` | bravo | 4 / 5 / 3 | Missing "create" phrasing; description-length rule (≤1024 chars) not in Review Checklist | Added "create" trigger + checklist item |
+| `superpowers/brainstorming` | charlie | 4 / 4 / 3 | Vague "modifying behavior" causes both over- and under-firing; HARD-GATE wording could be clearer about writing-plans being permitted | Tightened to "non-trivial modifications" + added "refactoring" |
+| `superpowers/receiving-code-review` | charlie | 3 / 4 / 3 | Conditional qualifier "especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable" mis-frames as edge-case skill rather than default protocol | Removed conditional + broadened to informal channels |
+| `superpowers/requesting-code-review` | charlie | 3 / 4 / 2 | Scope collision with built-in `code-review` skill — near-identical surface language but different execution (subagent dispatch vs inline). LOWEST EDGE-CASE SCORE OF THE BATCH | Added "dispatches a separate subagent reviewer" differentiator |
+| `superpowers/systematic-debugging` | delta | 5 / 5 / 4 | Strong; build/compile failures appear in body but missing from frontmatter trigger | Extended description with "build failure, compile error" + "debug/investigate/diagnose" |
+| `superpowers/writing-plans` | delta | 3 / 4 / 3 | Spec-centric framing gatekeeps on pre-existing spec doc; colloquial "write me a plan" misses | Added colloquial planning trigger phrases |
+| `asyrafhussin/optimizing-react-vite` | delta | 4 / 5 / 3 | Over-broad "Vite configuration" triggers on non-perf tasks; body references `rules/*.md` and `AGENTS.md` files that don't exist in the skill dir | Narrowed scope + added broken-reference warnings |
+| `boocode/improving-boocode-guidance` | echo | 5 / 5 / 4 | Strong; "critique" in description prose but missing from examples list | Added `"critique my BOOCODER.md"` to examples |
+| `vercel-labs/reviewing-web-design` | echo | 3 / 4 / 3 | Generic triggers collide with general code-review; delegates substance to external GitHub URL with no fallback on fetch failure | Named "Vercel's live web-interface-guidelines" as differentiator + added 404 fallback |
+
+## Aggregate notes
+
+**Trigger-quality stats (qualitative, n=14):**
+- Discovery 5/5: 5 skills | 4/5: 4 skills | 3/5: 5 skills (avg ~4.0)
+- Edge case is the weakest dimension across the batch — most skills hit 3/5 (borderline invoke/decline). Suggests skills are over- or under-triggering on adjacent-but-different tasks.
+- Every skill had at least one fix applied. None were judged "clean" with zero issues.
+- Zero skills were flagged for retroactive bucket-(a) reclassification — all 14 remain (b) recipes.
+
+**Real bugs surfaced (not just polish):**
+- `anthropics/developing-agents`: stale code reference (inference.ts:721-731 → stream-phase.ts:403-406). Real dead link.
+- `anthropics-knowledge-work/reviewing-code`: dead CONNECTORS.md cross-reference.
+- `asyrafhussin/optimizing-react-vite`: references `rules/*.md` and `AGENTS.md` subfiles that don't exist in the skill directory.
+- `superpowers/requesting-code-review`: scope collision with built-in `code-review` (review skills/auto-routing — Sam may want to drop one of these).
+
+**Structural flags requiring environment verification (not patched):**
+- `mattpocock/grilling-plans`: mandatory `ask_user_input` tool call assumed available. Confirm BooCode's tool registry exposes this to the chat-surface model. If not, the skill body's MANDATORY instruction deadlocks.
+
+**Skillgrade gap remains:**
+- Quantitative trigger rates (the original v1.13.12 N/5 column) require skillgrade with canonical-format eval.yaml. Filed as **v1.13.13** follow-up. The qualitative 4-step protocol catches the same class of issue (and arguably more — the broken-reference bugs above would not have shown up in skillgrade's invoke/decline trials).
+
+**Per-agent artifacts (working files, not part of repo):**
+- `/tmp/audit-alpha.md` — designing-frontends, developing-agents, reviewing-code
+- `/tmp/audit-bravo.md` — diagnosing-bugs, grilling-plans, writing-skills
+- `/tmp/audit-charlie.md` — brainstorming, receiving-code-review, requesting-code-review
+- `/tmp/audit-delta.md` — systematic-debugging, writing-plans, optimizing-react-vite
+- `/tmp/audit-echo.md` — improving-boocode-guidance, reviewing-web-design