zhongwei/gh-kivilaid-plugin-marketplace-development-workflow-skills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-30 08:32:04 +08:00
commit 68ea87cde3
15 changed files with 1910 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
.claude-plugin/plugin.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
{
"name": "development-workflow-skills",
"description": "Professional development workflow skills from obra/superpowers including TDD, git workflows, debugging, brainstorming, and root cause analysis",
"version": "0.0.0-2025.11.28",
"author": {
"name": "ando",
"email": "ando@kivilaid.ee"
},
"skills": [
"./skills/test-driven-development",
"./skills/using-git-worktrees",
"./skills/finishing-a-development-branch",
"./skills/root-cause-tracing",
"./skills/brainstorming",
"./skills/systematic-debugging"
]
}

3
README.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
# development-workflow-skills
Professional development workflow skills from obra/superpowers including TDD, git workflows, debugging, brainstorming, and root cause analysis

88
plugin.lock.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
{
"$schema": "internal://schemas/plugin.lock.v1.json",
"pluginId": "gh:kivilaid/plugin-marketplace:development-workflow-skills",
"normalized": {
"repo": null,
"ref": "refs/tags/v20251128.0",
"commit": "de67b437cf35f8f0acd5369f6ef57888dbdc2243",
"treeHash": "6f0be2efa881168200d06e4a1528d148197da4406dde256a96f07ca99cabe0a7",
"generatedAt": "2025-11-28T10:19:35.197262Z",
"toolVersion": "publish_plugins.py@0.2.0"
},
"origin": {
"remote": "git@github.com:zhongweili/42plugin-data.git",
"branch": "master",
"commit": "aa1497ed0949fd50e99e70d6324a29c5b34f9390",
"repoRoot": "/Users/zhongweili/projects/openmind/42plugin-data"
},
"manifest": {
"name": "development-workflow-skills",
"description": "Professional development workflow skills from obra/superpowers including TDD, git workflows, debugging, brainstorming, and root cause analysis"
},
"content": {
"files": [
{
"path": "README.md",
"sha256": "154f6f553ed310bedfae2e216bc2cc25c23f1f7a7523d1f26e5fc2c53f61f637"
},
{
"path": ".claude-plugin/plugin.json",
"sha256": "07c36d871aa002189ce650ac1bb93e58ed729a1a033bbec6033e889c417842d4"
},
{
"path": "skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md",
"sha256": "29571961ff488dc0c3a94a7d53ec5b1b1ef26e284986ffcfe3fd2481c21ca63e"
},
{
"path": "skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md",
"sha256": "a5ebe82af148ad8eb628585e45b5b734025a9df63af3e58b8f8c8dec00908e78"
},
{
"path": "skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md",
"sha256": "0b6a915db0054577819834c79be9eb614e97bddba10d73768e1fbe91cfed048a"
},
{
"path": "skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md",
"sha256": "b2030aeffba07050e8ad573ddf87486457c4a016a786bb326235bebd856f2016"
},
{
"path": "skills/systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md",
"sha256": "b482ef9a918fbfc6c369729e8160633ddfa2332466dd362ee73f1527c239ef8b"
},
{
"path": "skills/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md",
"sha256": "fe2ba480d78ac0d686dc025f41c2a32a43d642bf533f91b0c6053a04d35d6486"
},
{
"path": "skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md",
"sha256": "fd0afd5729d262d0d5f8aaf6515a756a6433c4d32b2e0bbc8cb2eff798f501a7"
},
{
"path": "skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md",
"sha256": "96b50a52e2c7989c9cf20fb752c47c1e9a3a70dc362f8f7989f8f5b64dac7708"
},
{
"path": "skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md",
"sha256": "dd2f82c6dc8582b621f9eb57fcb65f557f88eadf872727ac81d0840ae12c504e"
},
{
"path": "skills/root-cause-tracing/SKILL.md",
"sha256": "61dda95d3f44bf8312e4fe7d40589466724ca7937cc7be824a6feaf2b1318b6c"
},
{
"path": "skills/root-cause-tracing/find-polluter.sh",
"sha256": "f4dc594206175b17de25464b5f60a0e011774a7c7843014b6442338a085eba57"
},
{
"path": "skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md",
"sha256": "c9aa3f3acf5a768af3eb3c0c6db4ff08814af27445c85b26ac9d7f7791e46a41"
}
],
"dirSha256": "6f0be2efa881168200d06e4a1528d148197da4406dde256a96f07ca99cabe0a7"
},
"security": {
"scannedAt": null,
"scannerVersion": null,
"flags": []
}
}

165
skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
---
name: brainstorming
description: Use when creating or developing anything, before writing code or implementation plans - refines rough ideas into fully-formed designs through structured Socratic questioning, alternative exploration, and incremental validation
---
# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
## Overview
Transform rough ideas into fully-formed designs through structured questioning and alternative exploration.
**Core principle:** Ask questions to understand, explore alternatives, present design incrementally for validation.
**Announce at start:** "I'm using the brainstorming skill to refine your idea into a design."
## Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Tool Usage | Output |
|-------|---------------|------------|--------|
| **1. Understanding** | Ask questions (one at a time) | AskUserQuestion for choices | Purpose, constraints, criteria |
| **2. Exploration** | Propose 2-3 approaches | AskUserQuestion for approach selection | Architecture options with trade-offs |
| **3. Design Presentation** | Present in 200-300 word sections | Open-ended questions | Complete design with validation |
| **4. Design Documentation** | Write design document | writing-clearly-and-concisely skill | Design doc in docs/plans/ |
| **5. Worktree Setup** | Set up isolated workspace | using-git-worktrees skill | Ready development environment |
| **6. Planning Handoff** | Create implementation plan | writing-plans skill | Detailed task breakdown |
## The Process
Copy this checklist to track progress:
```
Brainstorming Progress:
- [ ] Phase 1: Understanding (purpose, constraints, criteria gathered)
- [ ] Phase 2: Exploration (2-3 approaches proposed and evaluated)
- [ ] Phase 3: Design Presentation (design validated in sections)
- [ ] Phase 4: Design Documentation (design written to docs/plans/)
- [ ] Phase 5: Worktree Setup (if implementing)
- [ ] Phase 6: Planning Handoff (if implementing)
```
### Phase 1: Understanding
- Check current project state in working directory
- Ask ONE question at a time to refine the idea
- **Use AskUserQuestion tool** when you have multiple choice options
- Gather: Purpose, constraints, success criteria
**Example using AskUserQuestion:**
```
Question: "Where should the authentication data be stored?"
Options:
- "Session storage" (clears on tab close, more secure)
- "Local storage" (persists across sessions, more convenient)
- "Cookies" (works with SSR, compatible with older approach)
```
### Phase 2: Exploration
- Propose 2-3 different approaches
- For each: Core architecture, trade-offs, complexity assessment
- **Use AskUserQuestion tool** to present approaches as structured choices
- Ask your human partner which approach resonates
**Example using AskUserQuestion:**
```
Question: "Which architectural approach should we use?"
Options:
- "Event-driven with message queue" (scalable, complex setup, eventual consistency)
- "Direct API calls with retry logic" (simple, synchronous, easier to debug)
- "Hybrid with background jobs" (balanced, moderate complexity, best of both)
```
### Phase 3: Design Presentation
- Present in 200-300 word sections
- Cover: Architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
- Ask after each section: "Does this look right so far?" (open-ended)
- Use open-ended questions here to allow freeform feedback
### Phase 4: Design Documentation
After design is validated, write it to a permanent document:
- **File location:** `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` (use actual date and descriptive topic)
- **RECOMMENDED SUB-SKILL:** Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely (if available) for documentation quality
- **Content:** Capture the design as discussed and validated in Phase 3, organized into the sections that emerged from the conversation
- Commit the design document to git before proceeding
### Phase 5: Worktree Setup (for implementation)
When design is approved and implementation will follow:
- Announce: "I'm using the using-git-worktrees skill to set up an isolated workspace."
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:using-git-worktrees
- Follow that skill's process for directory selection, safety verification, and setup
- Return here when worktree ready
### Phase 6: Planning Handoff
Ask: "Ready to create the implementation plan?"
When your human partner confirms (any affirmative response):
- Announce: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:writing-plans
- Create detailed plan in the worktree
## Question Patterns
### When to Use AskUserQuestion Tool
**Use AskUserQuestion for:**
- Phase 1: Clarifying questions with 2-4 clear options
- Phase 2: Architectural approach selection (2-3 alternatives)
- Any decision with distinct, mutually exclusive choices
- When options have clear trade-offs to explain
**Benefits:**
- Structured presentation of options with descriptions
- Clear trade-off visibility for partner
- Forces explicit choice (prevents vague "maybe both" responses)
### When to Use Open-Ended Questions
**Use open-ended questions for:**
- Phase 3: Design validation ("Does this look right so far?")
- When you need detailed feedback or explanation
- When partner should describe their own requirements
- When structured options would limit creative input
**Example decision flow:**
- "What authentication method?" → Use AskUserQuestion (2-4 options)
- "Does this design handle your use case?" → Open-ended (validation)
## When to Revisit Earlier Phases
```dot
digraph revisit_phases {
rankdir=LR;
"New constraint revealed?" [shape=diamond];
"Partner questions approach?" [shape=diamond];
"Requirements unclear?" [shape=diamond];
"Return to Phase 1" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
"Return to Phase 2" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffffcc"];
"Continue forward" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
"New constraint revealed?" -> "Return to Phase 1" [label="yes"];
"New constraint revealed?" -> "Partner questions approach?" [label="no"];
"Partner questions approach?" -> "Return to Phase 2" [label="yes"];
"Partner questions approach?" -> "Requirements unclear?" [label="no"];
"Requirements unclear?" -> "Return to Phase 1" [label="yes"];
"Requirements unclear?" -> "Continue forward" [label="no"];
}
```
**You can and should go backward when:**
- Partner reveals new constraint during Phase 2 or 3 → Return to Phase 1
- Validation shows fundamental gap in requirements → Return to Phase 1
- Partner questions approach during Phase 3 → Return to Phase 2
- Something doesn't make sense → Go back and clarify
**Don't force forward linearly** when going backward would give better results.
## Key Principles
| Principle | Application |
|-----------|-------------|
| **One question at a time** | Phase 1: Single question per message, use AskUserQuestion for choices |
| **Structured choices** | Use AskUserQuestion tool for 2-4 options with trade-offs |
| **YAGNI ruthlessly** | Remove unnecessary features from all designs |
| **Explore alternatives** | Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling |
| **Incremental validation** | Present design in sections, validate each |
| **Flexible progression** | Go backward when needed - flexibility > rigidity |
| **Announce usage** | State skill usage at start of session |

200
skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
---
name: finishing-a-development-branch
description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
---
# Finishing a Development Branch
## Overview
Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
**Core principle:** Verify tests → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
**Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
## The Process
### Step 1: Verify Tests
**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
```bash
# Run project's test suite
npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
```
**If tests fail:**
```
Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
[Show failures]
Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
```
Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
### Step 2: Determine Base Branch
```bash
# Try common base branches
git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
```
Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
### Step 3: Present Options
Present exactly these 4 options:
```
Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
2. Push and create a Pull Request
3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
4. Discard this work
Which option?
```
**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
### Step 4: Execute Choice
#### Option 1: Merge Locally
```bash
# Switch to base branch
git checkout <base-branch>
# Pull latest
git pull
# Merge feature branch
git merge <feature-branch>
# Verify tests on merged result
<test command>
# If tests pass
git branch -d <feature-branch>
```
Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
```bash
# Push branch
git push -u origin <feature-branch>
# Create PR
gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary
<2-3 bullets of what changed>
## Test Plan
- [ ] <verification steps>
EOF
)"
```
Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
**Don't cleanup worktree.**
#### Option 4: Discard
**Confirm first:**
```
This will permanently delete:
- Branch <name>
- All commits: <commit-list>
- Worktree at <path>
Type 'discard' to confirm.
```
Wait for exact confirmation.
If confirmed:
```bash
git checkout <base-branch>
git branch -D <feature-branch>
```
Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
### Step 5: Cleanup Worktree
**For Options 1, 2, 4:**
Check if in worktree:
```bash
git worktree list | grep $(git branch --show-current)
```
If yes:
```bash
git worktree remove <worktree-path>
```
**For Option 3:** Keep worktree.
## Quick Reference
| Option | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch |
|--------|-------|------|---------------|----------------|
| 1. Merge locally | ✓ | - | - | ✓ |
| 2. Create PR | - | ✓ | ✓ | - |
| 3. Keep as-is | - | - | ✓ | - |
| 4. Discard | - | - | - | ✓ (force) |
## Common Mistakes
**Skipping test verification**
- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
**Open-ended questions**
- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" → ambiguous
- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options
**Automatic worktree cleanup**
- **Problem:** Remove worktree when might need it (Option 2, 3)
- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
**No confirmation for discard**
- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
## Red Flags
**Never:**
- Proceed with failing tests
- Merge without verifying tests on result
- Delete work without confirmation
- Force-push without explicit request
**Always:**
- Verify tests before offering options
- Present exactly 4 options
- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
## Integration
**Called by:**
- **subagent-driven-development** (Step 7) - After all tasks complete
- **executing-plans** (Step 5) - After all batches complete
**Pairs with:**
- **using-git-worktrees** - Cleans up worktree created by that skill

174
skills/root-cause-tracing/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
---
name: root-cause-tracing
description: Use when errors occur deep in execution and you need to trace back to find the original trigger - systematically traces bugs backward through call stack, adding instrumentation when needed, to identify source of invalid data or incorrect behavior
---
# 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 /Users/jesse/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
```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

63
skills/root-cause-tracing/find-polluter.sh Executable file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
#!/bin/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

119
skills/systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md Normal file
View File

@@ -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 `/Users/jesse/.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*

295
skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
---
name: systematic-debugging
description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes - four-phase framework (root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, implementation) that ensures understanding before attempting solutions
---
# 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:**
**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:root-cause-tracing for 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
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:test-driven-development 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.
## Integration with Other Skills
**This skill requires using:**
- **root-cause-tracing** - REQUIRED when error is deep in call stack (see Phase 1, Step 5)
- **test-driven-development** - REQUIRED for creating failing test case (see Phase 4, Step 1)
**Complementary skills:**
- **defense-in-depth** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
- **condition-based-waiting** - Replace arbitrary timeouts identified in Phase 2
- **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

14
skills/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md Normal file
View File

@@ -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.

58
skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md Normal file
View File

@@ -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.

68
skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md Normal file
View File

@@ -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.

69
skills/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md Normal file
View File

@@ -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.

364
skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,364 @@
---
name: test-driven-development
description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code - write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass; ensures tests actually verify behavior by requiring failure first
---
# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
## Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
## When to Use
**Always:**
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
## The Iron Law
```
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
**No exceptions:**
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
## Red-Green-Refactor
```dot
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
```
### RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
<Good>
```typescript
test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
let attempts = 0;
const operation = () => {
attempts++;
if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
return 'success';
};
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success');
expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});
```
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
await retryOperation(mock);
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});
```
Vague name, tests mock not code
</Bad>
**Requirements:**
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
### GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test.
<Good>
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
try {
return await fn();
} catch (e) {
if (i === 2) throw e;
}
}
throw new Error('unreachable');
}
```
Just enough to pass
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(
fn: () => Promise<T>,
options?: {
maxRetries?: number;
backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
}
): Promise<T> {
// YAGNI
}
```
Over-engineered
</Bad>
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
**MANDATORY.**
```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
### REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
### Repeat
Next failing test for next feature.
## Good Tests
| Quality | Good | Bad |
|---------|------|-----|
| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
## Why Order Matters
**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test wrong thing
- Might test implementation, not behavior
- Might miss edge cases you forgot
- You never saw it catch the bug
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
- No record of what you tested
- Can't re-run when code changes
- Easy to forget cases under pressure
- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
TDD IS pragmatic:
- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
## Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
- "This is different because..."
**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
## Example: Bug Fix
**Bug:** Empty email accepted
**RED**
```typescript
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
```
**Verify RED**
```bash
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
```
**GREEN**
```typescript
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}
```
**Verify GREEN**
```bash
$ npm test
PASS
```
**REFACTOR**
Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
## Verification Checklist
Before marking work complete:
- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
## When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
|---------|----------|
| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
## Debugging Integration
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
## Final Rule
```
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
```
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

213
skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
---
name: using-git-worktrees
description: Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - creates isolated git worktrees with smart directory selection and safety verification
---
# Using Git Worktrees
## Overview
Git worktrees create isolated workspaces sharing the same repository, allowing work on multiple branches simultaneously without switching.
**Core principle:** Systematic directory selection + safety verification = reliable isolation.
**Announce at start:** "I'm using the using-git-worktrees skill to set up an isolated workspace."
## Directory Selection Process
Follow this priority order:
### 1. Check Existing Directories
```bash
# Check in priority order
ls -d .worktrees 2>/dev/null # Preferred (hidden)
ls -d worktrees 2>/dev/null # Alternative
```
**If found:** Use that directory. If both exist, `.worktrees` wins.
### 2. Check CLAUDE.md
```bash
grep -i "worktree.*director" CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null
```
**If preference specified:** Use it without asking.
### 3. Ask User
If no directory exists and no CLAUDE.md preference:
```
No worktree directory found. Where should I create worktrees?
1. .worktrees/ (project-local, hidden)
2. ~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/<project-name>/ (global location)
Which would you prefer?
```
## Safety Verification
### For Project-Local Directories (.worktrees or worktrees)
**MUST verify .gitignore before creating worktree:**
```bash
# Check if directory pattern in .gitignore
grep -q "^\.worktrees/$" .gitignore || grep -q "^worktrees/$" .gitignore
```
**If NOT in .gitignore:**
Per Jesse's rule "Fix broken things immediately":
1. Add appropriate line to .gitignore
2. Commit the change
3. Proceed with worktree creation
**Why critical:** Prevents accidentally committing worktree contents to repository.
### For Global Directory (~/.config/superpowers/worktrees)
No .gitignore verification needed - outside project entirely.
## Creation Steps
### 1. Detect Project Name
```bash
project=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)")
```
### 2. Create Worktree
```bash
# Determine full path
case $LOCATION in
.worktrees|worktrees)
path="$LOCATION/$BRANCH_NAME"
;;
~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/*)
path="~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/$project/$BRANCH_NAME"
;;
esac
# Create worktree with new branch
git worktree add "$path" -b "$BRANCH_NAME"
cd "$path"
```
### 3. Run Project Setup
Auto-detect and run appropriate setup:
```bash
# Node.js
if [ -f package.json ]; then npm install; fi
# Rust
if [ -f Cargo.toml ]; then cargo build; fi
# Python
if [ -f requirements.txt ]; then pip install -r requirements.txt; fi
if [ -f pyproject.toml ]; then poetry install; fi
# Go
if [ -f go.mod ]; then go mod download; fi
```
### 4. Verify Clean Baseline
Run tests to ensure worktree starts clean:
```bash
# Examples - use project-appropriate command
npm test
cargo test
pytest
go test ./...
```
**If tests fail:** Report failures, ask whether to proceed or investigate.
**If tests pass:** Report ready.
### 5. Report Location
```
Worktree ready at <full-path>
Tests passing (<N> tests, 0 failures)
Ready to implement <feature-name>
```
## Quick Reference
| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| `.worktrees/` exists | Use it (verify .gitignore) |
| `worktrees/` exists | Use it (verify .gitignore) |
| Both exist | Use `.worktrees/` |
| Neither exists | Check CLAUDE.md → Ask user |
| Directory not in .gitignore | Add it immediately + commit |
| Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
| No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |
## Common Mistakes
**Skipping .gitignore verification**
- **Problem:** Worktree contents get tracked, pollute git status
- **Fix:** Always grep .gitignore before creating project-local worktree
**Assuming directory location**
- **Problem:** Creates inconsistency, violates project conventions
- **Fix:** Follow priority: existing > CLAUDE.md > ask
**Proceeding with failing tests**
- **Problem:** Can't distinguish new bugs from pre-existing issues
- **Fix:** Report failures, get explicit permission to proceed
**Hardcoding setup commands**
- **Problem:** Breaks on projects using different tools
- **Fix:** Auto-detect from project files (package.json, etc.)
## Example Workflow
```
You: I'm using the using-git-worktrees skill to set up an isolated workspace.
[Check .worktrees/ - exists]
[Verify .gitignore - contains .worktrees/]
[Create worktree: git worktree add .worktrees/auth -b feature/auth]
[Run npm install]
[Run npm test - 47 passing]
Worktree ready at /Users/jesse/myproject/.worktrees/auth
Tests passing (47 tests, 0 failures)
Ready to implement auth feature
```
## Red Flags
**Never:**
- Create worktree without .gitignore verification (project-local)
- Skip baseline test verification
- Proceed with failing tests without asking
- Assume directory location when ambiguous
- Skip CLAUDE.md check
**Always:**
- Follow directory priority: existing > CLAUDE.md > ask
- Verify .gitignore for project-local
- Auto-detect and run project setup
- Verify clean test baseline
## Integration
**Called by:**
- **brainstorming** (Phase 4) - REQUIRED when design is approved and implementation follows
- Any skill needing isolated workspace
**Pairs with:**
- **finishing-a-development-branch** - REQUIRED for cleanup after work complete
- **executing-plans** or **subagent-driven-development** - Work happens in this worktree