diff --git a/.agents/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md index 9470cfc..3947ff9 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ description: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design. disable-model-invocation: true --- -Run a `/grilling` session. +Call the Skill tool with "grilling". diff --git a/.agents/skills/grill-me/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/grill-me/agents/openai.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4d6fb0c --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/grill-me/agents/openai.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +interface: + display_name: "Grill Me" + short_description: "Sharpen a plan through interview" +policy: + allow_implicit_invocation: false diff --git a/.agents/skills/grilling/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/grilling/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1c2bb7b --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/grilling/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +name: grilling +description: Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases. +--- + +Interview the user relentlessly until you reach a shared understanding. Map this as a **design tree**: every decision branches into the decisions that hang off it. + +Work the tree in **rounds**. The **frontier** is every decision whose prerequisites are already settled: the questions you can ask _now_ without guessing at answers you haven't heard yet. Ask the whole frontier in one round: number each question and give your recommended answer. Then wait for the user's answers before the next round. + +Each question should be formatted like so: + +``` +❓ **Q1** - ****: + +➡️ +``` + +Each round the user answers reshapes the tree: settled decisions push the frontier outward and unblock questions that depended on them. Recompute the frontier and ask the next round. A question whose answer depends on another question still open in this round belongs to a _later_ round, not this one. + +Finding _facts_ is your job, never the user's. When a frontier question needs a fact from the environment (filesystem, tools, etc.), dispatch a sub-agent to find it; don't ask the user for anything you could look up yourself. Don't block on it: a running exploration is an unsettled prerequisite, so only the questions downstream of it wait for the sub-agent to report; ask the rest of the frontier now. The _decisions_ are the user's: put each to them and wait. + +The session is done when the frontier is empty: every branch of the design tree visited, nothing left silently assumed. Do not act on it until the user confirms you have reached a shared understanding. diff --git a/.agents/skills/grilling/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/grilling/agents/openai.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ddbdb96 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/grilling/agents/openai.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +interface: + display_name: "Grilling" + short_description: "Stress-test thinking a round of questions at a time" diff --git a/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md b/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..17f6d2c --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +# HTML Report Format + +The architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the OS temp directory. Tailwind and Mermaid both come from CDNs. Mermaid handles graph-shaped diagrams reliably; hand-built divs and inline SVG handle the more editorial visuals (mass diagrams, cross-sections). Mix the two — don't lean on Mermaid for everything, it'll start to look generic. + +## Scaffold + +```html + + + + + Architecture review — {{repo name}} + + + + + +
+
...
+
...
+
...
+
+ + +``` + +## Header + +Repo name, date, and a compact legend: solid box = module, dashed line = seam, red arrow = leakage, thick dark box = deep module. No introduction paragraph — straight into the candidates. + +## Candidate card + +The diagrams carry the weight. Prose is sparse, plain, and uses the glossary terms (from the `/codebase-design` skill) without ceremony. + +Each candidate is one `
`: + +- **Title** — short, names the deepening (e.g. "Collapse the Order intake pipeline"). +- **Badge row** — recommendation strength (`Strong` = emerald, `Worth exploring` = amber, `Speculative` = slate), plus a tag for the dependency category (`in-process`, `local-substitutable`, `ports & adapters`, `mock`). +- **Files** — monospaced list, `font-mono text-sm`. +- **Before / After diagram** — the centrepiece. Two columns, side by side. See patterns below. +- **Problem** — one sentence. What hurts. +- **Solution** — one sentence. What changes. +- **Wins** — bullets, ≤6 words each. e.g. "Tests hit one interface", "Pricing logic stops leaking", "Delete 4 shallow wrappers". +- **ADR callout** (if applicable) — one line in an amber-tinted box. + +No paragraphs of explanation. If the diagram needs a paragraph to be understood, redraw the diagram. + +## Diagram patterns + +Pick the pattern that fits the candidate. Mix them. Don't make every diagram look the same — variety is part of the point. + +### Mermaid graph (the workhorse for dependencies / call flow) + +Use a Mermaid `flowchart` or `graph` when the point is "X calls Y calls Z, and look at the mess." Wrap it in a Tailwind-styled card so it doesn't feel parachuted in. Style with classDef to colour leakage edges red and the deep module dark. Sequence diagrams work well for "before: 6 round-trips; after: 1." + +```html +
+ 
+    flowchart LR
+      A[OrderHandler] --> B[OrderValidator]
+      B --> C[OrderRepo]
+      C -.leak.-> D[PricingClient]
+      classDef leak stroke:#dc2626,stroke-width:2px;
+      class C,D leak
+
+
+``` + +### Hand-built boxes-and-arrows (when Mermaid's layout fights you) + +Modules as `
`s with borders and labels. Arrows as inline SVG `` or `` elements positioned absolutely over a relative container. Reach for this when you want the "after" diagram to feel like one thick-bordered deep module with greyed-out internals — Mermaid won't render that with the right weight. + +### Cross-section (good for layered shallowness) + +Stack horizontal bands (`h-12 border-l-4`) to show layers a call passes through. Before: 6 thin layers each doing nothing. After: 1 thick band labelled with the consolidated responsibility. + +### Mass diagram (good for "interface as wide as implementation") + +Two rectangles per module — one for interface surface area, one for implementation. Before: interface rectangle is nearly as tall as the implementation rectangle (shallow). After: interface rectangle is short, implementation rectangle is tall (deep). + +### Call-graph collapse + +Before: a tree of function calls rendered as nested boxes. After: the same tree collapsed into one box, with the now-internal calls shown faded inside it. + +## Style guidance + +- Lean editorial, not corporate-dashboard. Generous whitespace. Serif optional for headings (`font-serif` works well with stone/slate). +- Colour sparingly: one accent (emerald or indigo) plus red for leakage and amber for warnings. +- Keep diagrams ~320px tall so before/after sits comfortably side by side without scrolling. +- Use `text-xs uppercase tracking-wider` for module labels inside diagrams — they should read as schematic, not as UI. +- The only scripts are the Tailwind CDN and the Mermaid ESM import. The report is otherwise static — no app code, no interactivity beyond Mermaid's own rendering. + +## Top recommendation section + +One larger card. Candidate name, one sentence on why, anchor link to its card. That's it. + +## Tone + +Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from the `/codebase-design` skill. Concision is not an excuse to drift. + +**Use exactly:** module, interface, implementation, depth, deep, shallow, seam, adapter, leverage, locality. + +**Never substitute:** component, service, unit (for module) · API, signature (for interface) · boundary (for seam) · layer, wrapper (for module, when you mean module). + +**Phrasings that fit the style:** + +- "Order intake module is shallow — interface nearly matches the implementation." +- "Pricing leaks across the seam." +- "Deepen: one interface, one place to test." +- "Two adapters justify the seam: HTTP in prod, in-memory in tests." + +**Wins bullets** name the gain in glossary terms: *"locality: bugs concentrate in one module"*, *"leverage: one interface, N call sites"*, *"interface shrinks; implementation absorbs the wrappers"*. Don't write *"easier to maintain"* or *"cleaner code"* — those terms aren't in the glossary and don't earn their place. + +No hedging, no throat-clearing, no "it's worth noting that…". If a sentence could be a bullet, make it a bullet. If a bullet could be cut, cut it. If a term isn't in the `/codebase-design` glossary, reach for one that is before inventing a new one. diff --git a/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..86c025b --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +--- +name: improve-codebase-architecture +description: Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick. +disable-model-invocation: true +--- + +# Improve Codebase Architecture + +Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability. + +This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary: + +- Call the Skill tool with "codebase-design" for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." +- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate. + +## Process + +### 1. Explore + +**Scope before you scan — YAGNI.** Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so put extra weight on the parts of the codebase that have recently changed. Decide *where* to look before you look: + +- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below. +- Otherwise, walk back a good stretch of the commit history (`git log --oneline`) to find the codebase's hot spots — the files and areas that keep coming up — and let those paths pull your attention first. If the changes are scattered with no clear hot spot, widen the net. + +Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first. + +Then spawn a sub-agent to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction: + +- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules? +- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation? +- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)? +- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams? +- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface? + +Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want. + +### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report + +Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from `$TMPDIR`, falling back to `/tmp` (or `%TEMP%` on Windows), and write to `/architecture-review-.html` so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — `xdg-open ` on Linux, `open ` on macOS, `start ` on Windows — and tell them the absolute path. + +The report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual. + +For each candidate, render a card with: + +- **Files** — which files/modules are involved +- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction +- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change +- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve +- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening +- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge + +End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why. + +**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the `/codebase-design` vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service." + +**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids. + +See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance. + +Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?" + +### 3. Grilling loop + +Once the user picks a candidate, call the Skill tool with "grilling" to walk the decision tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive. + +Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — call the Skill tool with "domain-modeling" to keep the domain model current as you go: + +- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md`. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist. +- **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there. +- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. +- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Call the Skill tool with "codebase-design" and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern. diff --git a/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/agents/openai.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..706fdca --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/agents/openai.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +interface: + display_name: "Improve Codebase Architecture" + short_description: "Find and grill architecture improvements" +policy: + allow_implicit_invocation: false diff --git a/.agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8a6466 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +--- +name: tdd +description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests. +--- + +# Test-Driven Development + +TDD is the red → green loop. This skill is the reference that makes that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, the anti-patterns, and the rules of the loop. Every section applies on every cycle — consult them before and during the loop, not after. + +When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching. + +## What a good test is + +Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification — "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists — and survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure. + +See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines. + +## Seams — where tests go + +A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals. + +**Test only at pre-agreed seams.** Before writing any test, write down the seams under test and confirm them with the user. No test is written at an unconfirmed seam. You can't test everything — agreeing the seams up front is how testing effort lands on the critical paths and complex logic instead of every edge case. + +Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?" + +When the shape of that interface is itself in question — how deep the module is, where the seam belongs, what the interface should expose — call the Skill tool with "codebase-design" for the vocabulary. It is the shared source of the module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage and locality terms, and it is a reference to consult, not a session to run. + +## Anti-patterns + +- **Implementation-coupled** — mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed. +- **Tautological** — the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec. +- **Horizontal slicing** — writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead — one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you. + +## Rules of the loop + +- **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features. +- **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle. +- **Refactoring is not part of the loop.** It belongs to the review stage (see the `code-review` skill), not the red → green implementation cycle. diff --git a/.agents/skills/tdd/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/tdd/agents/openai.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..651b838 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/tdd/agents/openai.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +interface: + display_name: "TDD" + short_description: "Test-driven red-green-refactor" diff --git a/.agents/skills/tdd/mocking.md b/.agents/skills/tdd/mocking.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..71cbfee --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/tdd/mocking.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +# When to Mock + +Mock at **system boundaries** only: + +- External APIs (payment, email, etc.) +- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB) +- Time/randomness +- File system (sometimes) + +Don't mock: + +- Your own classes/modules +- Internal collaborators +- Anything you control + +## Designing for Mockability + +At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock: + +**1. Use dependency injection** + +Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally: + +```typescript +// Easy to mock +function processPayment(order, paymentClient) { + return paymentClient.charge(order.total); +} + +// Hard to mock +function processPayment(order) { + const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY); + return client.charge(order.total); +} +``` + +**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers** + +Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic: + +```typescript +// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable +const api = { + getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`), + getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`), + createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }), +}; + +// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock +const api = { + fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options), +}; +``` + +The SDK approach means: +- Each mock returns one specific shape +- No conditional logic in test setup +- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises +- Type safety per endpoint diff --git a/.agents/skills/tdd/tests.md b/.agents/skills/tdd/tests.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7ab8647 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/tdd/tests.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +# Good and Bad Tests + +## Good Tests + +**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts. + +```typescript +// GOOD: Tests observable behavior +test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => { + const cart = createCart(); + cart.add(product); + const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod); + expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed"); +}); +``` + +Characteristics: + +- Tests behavior users/callers care about +- Uses public API only +- Survives internal refactors +- Describes WHAT, not HOW +- One logical assertion per test + +## Bad Tests + +**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure. + +```typescript +// BAD: Tests implementation details +test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => { + const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService); + await checkout(cart, payment); + expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total); +}); +``` + +Red flags: + +- Mocking internal collaborators +- Testing private methods +- Asserting on call counts/order +- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change +- Test name describes HOW not WHAT +- Verifying through external means instead of interface + +```typescript +// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify +test("createUser saves to database", async () => { + await createUser({ name: "Alice" }); + const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]); + expect(row).toBeDefined(); +}); + +// GOOD: Verifies through interface +test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => { + const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" }); + const retrieved = await getUser(user.id); + expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice"); +}); +``` + +**Tautological tests**: Expected value restates the implementation, so the test passes by construction. + +```typescript +// BAD: Expected value is recomputed the way the code computes it +test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => { + const items = [{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }]; + const expected = items.reduce((sum, i) => sum + i.price, 0); + expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(expected); +}); + +// GOOD: Expected value is an independent, known literal +test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => { + expect(calculateTotal([{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }])).toBe(15); +}); +``` diff --git a/.codex/config.toml##os.Linux b/.codex/config.toml##os.Linux index b961cfe..f45c941 100644 --- a/.codex/config.toml##os.Linux +++ b/.codex/config.toml##os.Linux @@ -7,12 +7,11 @@ tool_output_token_limit = 25000 # With tool_output_token_limit=25000 ⇒ 273000 - (25000 + 15000) = 233000 model_auto_compact_token_limit = 233000 suppress_unstable_features_warning = true -notify = ["/home/sudacode/.codex/scripts/codex-notify"] sandbox_mode = "workspace-write" service_tier = "default" [tui] -notifications = ["agent-turn-complete"] +notifications = ["agent-turn-complete", "approval-requested"] notification_condition = "always" [tui.model_availability_nux] @@ -247,9 +246,6 @@ enabled = true [plugins."chrome@openai-bundled"] enabled = true -[plugins."subminer-workflow@subminer-local"] -enabled = true - [plugins."coderabbit@openai-curated"] enabled = true diff --git a/.config/waybar/catppuccin-macchiato/config.jsonc b/.config/waybar/catppuccin-macchiato/config.jsonc index fc13ca5..2659983 100644 --- a/.config/waybar/catppuccin-macchiato/config.jsonc +++ b/.config/waybar/catppuccin-macchiato/config.jsonc @@ -234,8 +234,7 @@ // "20": "十", }, "persistent-workspaces": { - "*": 10, - // "*": 5, + "*": [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], }, "sort-by": "number", "all-outputs": false,