Initial commit

This commit is contained in:
AnRil
2026-05-16 13:43:29 +07:00
commit 688a86b611
208 changed files with 44350 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
---
name: code-simplification
description: Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
---
# Code Simplification
> Inspired by the [Claude Code Simplifier plugin](https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/blob/main/plugins/code-simplifier/agents/code-simplifier.md). Adapted here as a model-agnostic, process-driven skill for any AI coding agent.
## Overview
Simplify code by reducing complexity while preserving exact behavior. The goal is not fewer lines — it's code that is easier to read, understand, modify, and debug. Every simplification must pass a simple test: "Would a new team member understand this faster than the original?"
## When to Use
- After a feature is working and tests pass, but the implementation feels heavier than it needs to be
- During code review when readability or complexity issues are flagged
- When you encounter deeply nested logic, long functions, or unclear names
- When refactoring code written under time pressure
- When consolidating related logic scattered across files
- After merging changes that introduced duplication or inconsistency
**When NOT to use:**
- Code is already clean and readable — don't simplify for the sake of it
- You don't understand what the code does yet — comprehend before you simplify
- The code is performance-critical and the "simpler" version would be measurably slower
- You're about to rewrite the module entirely — simplifying throwaway code wastes effort
## The Five Principles
### 1. Preserve Behavior Exactly
Don't change what the code does — only how it expresses it. All inputs, outputs, side effects, error behavior, and edge cases must remain identical. If you're not sure a simplification preserves behavior, don't make it.
```
ASK BEFORE EVERY CHANGE:
→ Does this produce the same output for every input?
→ Does this maintain the same error behavior?
→ Does this preserve the same side effects and ordering?
→ Do all existing tests still pass without modification?
```
### 2. Follow Project Conventions
Simplification means making code more consistent with the codebase, not imposing external preferences. Before simplifying:
```
1. Read CLAUDE.md / project conventions
2. Study how neighboring code handles similar patterns
3. Match the project's style for:
- Import ordering and module system
- Function declaration style
- Naming conventions
- Error handling patterns
- Type annotation depth
```
Simplification that breaks project consistency is not simplification — it's churn.
### 3. Prefer Clarity Over Cleverness
Explicit code is better than compact code when the compact version requires a mental pause to parse.
```typescript
// UNCLEAR: Dense ternary chain
const label = isNew ? 'New' : isUpdated ? 'Updated' : isArchived ? 'Archived' : 'Active';
// CLEAR: Readable mapping
function getStatusLabel(item: Item): string {
if (item.isNew) return 'New';
if (item.isUpdated) return 'Updated';
if (item.isArchived) return 'Archived';
return 'Active';
}
```
```typescript
// UNCLEAR: Chained reduces with inline logic
const result = items.reduce((acc, item) => ({
...acc,
[item.id]: { ...acc[item.id], count: (acc[item.id]?.count ?? 0) + 1 }
}), {});
// CLEAR: Named intermediate step
const countById = new Map<string, number>();
for (const item of items) {
countById.set(item.id, (countById.get(item.id) ?? 0) + 1);
}
```
### 4. Maintain Balance
Simplification has a failure mode: over-simplification. Watch for these traps:
- **Inlining too aggressively** — removing a helper that gave a concept a name makes the call site harder to read
- **Combining unrelated logic** — two simple functions merged into one complex function is not simpler
- **Removing "unnecessary" abstraction** — some abstractions exist for extensibility or testability, not complexity
- **Optimizing for line count** — fewer lines is not the goal; easier comprehension is
### 5. Scope to What Changed
Default to simplifying recently modified code. Avoid drive-by refactors of unrelated code unless explicitly asked to broaden scope. Unscoped simplification creates noise in diffs and risks unintended regressions.
## The Simplification Process
### Step 1: Understand Before Touching (Chesterton's Fence)
Before changing or removing anything, understand why it exists. This is Chesterton's Fence: if you see a fence across a road and don't understand why it's there, don't tear it down. First understand the reason, then decide if the reason still applies.
```
BEFORE SIMPLIFYING, ANSWER:
- What is this code's responsibility?
- What calls it? What does it call?
- What are the edge cases and error paths?
- Are there tests that define the expected behavior?
- Why might it have been written this way? (Performance? Platform constraint? Historical reason?)
- Check git blame: what was the original context for this code?
```
If you can't answer these, you're not ready to simplify. Read more context first.
### Step 2: Identify Simplification Opportunities
Scan for these patterns — each one is a concrete signal, not a vague smell:
**Structural complexity:**
| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
|---------|--------|----------------|
| Deep nesting (3+ levels) | Hard to follow control flow | Extract conditions into guard clauses or helper functions |
| Long functions (50+ lines) | Multiple responsibilities | Split into focused functions with descriptive names |
| Nested ternaries | Requires mental stack to parse | Replace with if/else chains, switch, or lookup objects |
| Boolean parameter flags | `doThing(true, false, true)` | Replace with options objects or separate functions |
| Repeated conditionals | Same `if` check in multiple places | Extract to a well-named predicate function |
**Naming and readability:**
| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
|---------|--------|----------------|
| Generic names | `data`, `result`, `temp`, `val`, `item` | Rename to describe the content: `userProfile`, `validationErrors` |
| Abbreviated names | `usr`, `cfg`, `btn`, `evt` | Use full words unless the abbreviation is universal (`id`, `url`, `api`) |
| Misleading names | Function named `get` that also mutates state | Rename to reflect actual behavior |
| Comments explaining "what" | `// increment counter` above `count++` | Delete the comment — the code is clear enough |
| Comments explaining "why" | `// Retry because the API is flaky under load` | Keep these — they carry intent the code can't express |
**Redundancy:**
| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
|---------|--------|----------------|
| Duplicated logic | Same 5+ lines in multiple places | Extract to a shared function |
| Dead code | Unreachable branches, unused variables, commented-out blocks | Remove (after confirming it's truly dead) |
| Unnecessary abstractions | Wrapper that adds no value | Inline the wrapper, call the underlying function directly |
| Over-engineered patterns | Factory-for-a-factory, strategy-with-one-strategy | Replace with the simple direct approach |
| Redundant type assertions | Casting to a type that's already inferred | Remove the assertion |
### Step 3: Apply Changes Incrementally
Make one simplification at a time. Run tests after each change. **Submit refactoring changes separately from feature or bug fix changes.** A PR that refactors and adds a feature is two PRs — split them.
```
FOR EACH SIMPLIFICATION:
1. Make the change
2. Run the test suite
3. If tests pass → commit (or continue to next simplification)
4. If tests fail → revert and reconsider
```
Avoid batching multiple simplifications into a single untested change. If something breaks, you need to know which simplification caused it.
**The Rule of 500:** If a refactoring would touch more than 500 lines, invest in automation (codemods, sed scripts, AST transforms) rather than making the changes by hand. Manual edits at that scale are error-prone and exhausting to review.
### Step 4: Verify the Result
After all simplifications, step back and evaluate the whole:
```
COMPARE BEFORE AND AFTER:
- Is the simplified version genuinely easier to understand?
- Did you introduce any new patterns inconsistent with the codebase?
- Is the diff clean and reviewable?
- Would a teammate approve this change?
```
If the "simplified" version is harder to understand or review, revert. Not every simplification attempt succeeds.
## Language-Specific Guidance
### TypeScript / JavaScript
```typescript
// SIMPLIFY: Unnecessary async wrapper
// Before
async function getUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
return await userService.findById(id);
}
// After
function getUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
return userService.findById(id);
}
// SIMPLIFY: Verbose conditional assignment
// Before
let displayName: string;
if (user.nickname) {
displayName = user.nickname;
} else {
displayName = user.fullName;
}
// After
const displayName = user.nickname || user.fullName;
// SIMPLIFY: Manual array building
// Before
const activeUsers: User[] = [];
for (const user of users) {
if (user.isActive) {
activeUsers.push(user);
}
}
// After
const activeUsers = users.filter((user) => user.isActive);
// SIMPLIFY: Redundant boolean return
// Before
function isValid(input: string): boolean {
if (input.length > 0 && input.length < 100) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
// After
function isValid(input: string): boolean {
return input.length > 0 && input.length < 100;
}
```
### Python
```python
# SIMPLIFY: Verbose dictionary building
# Before
result = {}
for item in items:
result[item.id] = item.name
# After
result = {item.id: item.name for item in items}
# SIMPLIFY: Nested conditionals with early return
# Before
def process(data):
if data is not None:
if data.is_valid():
if data.has_permission():
return do_work(data)
else:
raise PermissionError("No permission")
else:
raise ValueError("Invalid data")
else:
raise TypeError("Data is None")
# After
def process(data):
if data is None:
raise TypeError("Data is None")
if not data.is_valid():
raise ValueError("Invalid data")
if not data.has_permission():
raise PermissionError("No permission")
return do_work(data)
```
### React / JSX
```tsx
// SIMPLIFY: Verbose conditional rendering
// Before
function UserBadge({ user }: Props) {
if (user.isAdmin) {
return <Badge variant="admin">Admin</Badge>;
} else {
return <Badge variant="default">User</Badge>;
}
}
// After
function UserBadge({ user }: Props) {
const variant = user.isAdmin ? 'admin' : 'default';
const label = user.isAdmin ? 'Admin' : 'User';
return <Badge variant={variant}>{label}</Badge>;
}
// SIMPLIFY: Prop drilling through intermediate components
// Before — consider whether context or composition solves this better.
// This is a judgment call — flag it, don't auto-refactor.
```
## Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's working, no need to touch it" | Working code that's hard to read will be hard to fix when it breaks. Simplifying now saves time on every future change. |
| "Fewer lines is always simpler" | A 1-line nested ternary is not simpler than a 5-line if/else. Simplicity is about comprehension speed, not line count. |
| "I'll just quickly simplify this unrelated code too" | Unscoped simplification creates noisy diffs and risks regressions in code you didn't intend to change. Stay focused. |
| "The types make it self-documenting" | Types document structure, not intent. A well-named function explains *why* better than a type signature explains *what*. |
| "This abstraction might be useful later" | Don't preserve speculative abstractions. If it's not used now, it's complexity without value. Remove it and re-add when needed. |
| "The original author must have had a reason" | Maybe. Check git blame — apply Chesterton's Fence. But accumulated complexity often has no reason; it's just the residue of iteration under pressure. |
| "I'll refactor while adding this feature" | Separate refactoring from feature work. Mixed changes are harder to review, revert, and understand in history. |
## Red Flags
- Simplification that requires modifying tests to pass (you likely changed behavior)
- "Simplified" code that is longer and harder to follow than the original
- Renaming things to match your preferences rather than project conventions
- Removing error handling because "it makes the code cleaner"
- Simplifying code you don't fully understand
- Batching many simplifications into one large, hard-to-review commit
- Refactoring code outside the scope of the current task without being asked
## Verification
After completing a simplification pass:
- [ ] All existing tests pass without modification
- [ ] Build succeeds with no new warnings
- [ ] Linter/formatter passes (no style regressions)
- [ ] Each simplification is a reviewable, incremental change
- [ ] The diff is clean — no unrelated changes mixed in
- [ ] Simplified code follows project conventions (checked against CLAUDE.md or equivalent)
- [ ] No error handling was removed or weakened
- [ ] No dead code was left behind (unused imports, unreachable branches)
- [ ] A teammate or review agent would approve the change as a net improvement

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
# Accessibility Checklist
Quick reference for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. Use alongside the `frontend-ui-engineering` skill.
## Table of Contents
- [Essential Checks](#essential-checks)
- [Common HTML Patterns](#common-html-patterns)
- [Testing Tools](#testing-tools)
- [Quick Reference: ARIA Live Regions](#quick-reference-aria-live-regions)
- [Common Anti-Patterns](#common-anti-patterns)
## Essential Checks
### Keyboard Navigation
- [ ] All interactive elements focusable via Tab key
- [ ] Focus order follows visual/logical order
- [ ] Focus is visible (outline/ring on focused elements)
- [ ] Custom widgets have keyboard support (Enter to activate, Escape to close)
- [ ] No keyboard traps (user can always Tab away from a component)
- [ ] Skip-to-content link at top of page - visible (at least) on keyboard focus
- [ ] Modals trap focus while open, return focus on close
### Screen Readers
- [ ] All images have `alt` text (or `alt=""` for decorative images)
- [ ] All form inputs have associated labels (`<label>` or `aria-label`)
- [ ] Buttons and links have descriptive text (not "Click here")
- [ ] Icon-only buttons have `aria-label`
- [ ] Page has one `<h1>` and headings don't skip levels
- [ ] Dynamic content changes announced (`aria-live` regions)
- [ ] Tables have `<th>` headers with scope
### Visual
- [ ] Text contrast ≥ 4.5:1 (normal text) or ≥ 3:1 (large text, 18px+)
- [ ] UI components contrast ≥ 3:1 against background
- [ ] Color is not the only way to convey information
- [ ] Text resizable to 200% without breaking layout
- [ ] No content that flashes more than 3 times per second
### Forms
- [ ] Every input has a visible label
- [ ] Required fields indicated (not by color alone)
- [ ] Error messages specific and associated with the field
- [ ] Error state visible by more than color (icon, text, border)
- [ ] Form submission errors summarized and focusable
- [ ] Known fields use autocomplete (for example `type="email" autocomplete="email"`)
### Content
- [ ] Language declared (`<html lang="en">`)
- [ ] Page has a descriptive `<title>`
- [ ] Links distinguish from surrounding text (not by color alone)
- [ ] Touch targets ≥ 44x44px on mobile
- [ ] Meaningful empty states (not blank screens)
## Common HTML Patterns
### Buttons vs. Links
```html
<!-- Use <button> for actions -->
<button onClick={handleDelete}>Delete Task</button>
<!-- Use <a> for navigation -->
<a href="/tasks/123">View Task</a>
<!-- NEVER use div/span as buttons -->
<div onClick={handleDelete}>Delete</div> <!-- BAD -->
```
### Form Labels
```html
<!-- Explicit label association -->
<label htmlFor="email">Email address</label>
<input id="email" type="email" required />
<!-- Implicit wrapping -->
<label>
Email address
<input type="email" required />
</label>
<!-- Hidden label (visible label preferred) -->
<input type="search" aria-label="Search tasks" />
```
### ARIA Roles
```html
<!-- Navigation -->
<nav aria-label="Main navigation">...</nav>
<nav aria-label="Footer links">...</nav>
<!-- Status messages -->
<div role="status" aria-live="polite">Task saved</div>
<!-- Alert messages -->
<div role="alert">Error: Title is required</div>
<!-- Modal dialogs -->
<dialog aria-modal="true" aria-labelledby="dialog-title">
<h2 id="dialog-title">Confirm Delete</h2>
...
</dialog>
<!-- Loading states -->
<div aria-busy="true" aria-label="Loading tasks">
<Spinner />
</div>
```
### Accessible Lists
```html
<ul role="list" aria-label="Tasks">
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="task-1" aria-label="Complete: Buy groceries" />
<label htmlFor="task-1">Buy groceries</label>
</li>
</ul>
```
## Testing Tools
```bash
# Automated audit
npx axe-core # Programmatic accessibility testing
npx pa11y # CLI accessibility checker
# In browser
# Chrome DevTools → Lighthouse → Accessibility
# Chrome DevTools → Elements → Accessibility tree
# Screen reader testing
# macOS: VoiceOver (Cmd + F5)
# Windows: NVDA (free) or JAWS
# Linux: Orca
```
## Quick Reference: ARIA Live Regions
| Value | Behavior | Use For |
|-------|----------|---------|
| `aria-live="polite"` | Announced at next pause | Status updates, saved confirmations |
| `aria-live="assertive"` | Announced immediately | Errors, time-sensitive alerts |
| `role="status"` | Same as `polite` | Status messages |
| `role="alert"` | Same as `assertive` | Error messages |
## Common Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| `div` as button | Not focusable, no keyboard support | Use `<button>` |
| Missing `alt` text | Images invisible to screen readers | Add descriptive `alt` |
| Color-only states | Invisible to color-blind users | Add icons, text, or patterns |
| Autoplaying media | Disorienting, can't be stopped | Add controls, don't autoplay |
| Custom dropdown with no ARIA | Unusable by keyboard/screen reader | Use native `<select>` or proper ARIA listbox |
| Removing focus outlines | Users can't see where they are | Style outlines, don't remove them |
| Empty links/buttons | "Link" announced with no description | Add text or `aria-label` |
| `tabindex > 0` | Breaks natural tab order | Use `tabindex="0"` or `-1` only |

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,370 @@
# Orchestration Patterns
Reference catalog of agent orchestration patterns this repo endorses, plus anti-patterns to avoid. Read this before adding a new slash command that coordinates multiple personas, or before introducing a new persona that "wraps" existing ones.
The governing rule: **the user (or a slash command) is the orchestrator. Personas do not invoke other personas.** Skills are mandatory hops inside a persona's workflow.
---
## Endorsed patterns
### 1. Direct invocation (no orchestration)
Single persona, single perspective, single artifact. The default and the cheapest option.
```
user → code-reviewer → report → user
```
**Use when:** the work is one perspective on one artifact and you can describe it in one sentence.
**Examples:**
- "Review this PR" → `code-reviewer`
- "Find security issues in `auth.ts`" → `security-auditor`
- "What tests are missing for the checkout flow?" → `test-engineer`
**Cost:** one round trip. The baseline you should always compare orchestrated patterns against.
---
### 2. Single-persona slash command
A slash command that wraps one persona with the project's skills. Saves the user from re-explaining the workflow every time.
```
/review → code-reviewer (with code-review-and-quality skill) → report
```
**Use when:** the same single-persona invocation happens repeatedly with the same setup.
**Examples in this repo:** `/review`, `/test`, `/code-simplify`.
**Cost:** same as direct invocation. The slash command is just a saved prompt.
**Anti-signal:** if the slash command's body is mostly "decide which persona to call," delete it and let the user call the persona directly.
---
### 3. Parallel fan-out with merge
Multiple personas operate on the same input concurrently, each producing an independent report. A merge step (in the main agent's context) synthesizes them into a single decision.
```
┌─→ code-reviewer ─┐
/ship → fan out ───┼─→ security-auditor ─┤→ merge → go/no-go + rollback
└─→ test-engineer ─┘
```
**Use when:**
- The sub-tasks are genuinely independent (no shared mutable state, no ordering dependency)
- Each sub-agent benefits from its own context window
- The merge step is small enough to stay in the main context
- Wall-clock latency matters
**Examples in this repo:** `/ship`.
**Cost:** N parallel sub-agent contexts + one merge turn. Higher than direct invocation, but faster wall-clock and produces better reports because each sub-agent stays focused on its single perspective.
**Validation checklist before adopting this pattern:**
- [ ] Can I run all sub-agents at the same time without ordering issues?
- [ ] Does each persona produce a different *kind* of finding, not just the same finding from a different angle?
- [ ] Will the merge step fit in the main agent's remaining context?
- [ ] Is the user's wait time long enough that parallelism is actually noticeable?
If any answer is "no," fall back to direct invocation or a single-persona command.
---
### 4. Sequential pipeline as user-driven slash commands
The user runs slash commands in a defined order, carrying context (or commit history) between them. There is no orchestrator agent — the user IS the orchestrator.
```
user runs: /spec → /plan → /build → /test → /review → /ship
```
**Use when:** the workflow has dependencies (each step needs the previous step's output) and human judgment between steps adds value.
**Examples in this repo:** the entire DEFINE → PLAN → BUILD → VERIFY → REVIEW → SHIP lifecycle.
**Cost:** one sub-agent context per step. Free for the orchestration layer because there is no orchestrator agent.
**Why not automate it:** an LLM "lifecycle orchestrator" would (a) lose nuance between steps because it has to summarize for hand-off, (b) skip the human checkpoints that catch wrong-direction work early, and (c) double the token cost via paraphrasing turns.
---
### 5. Research isolation (context preservation)
When a task requires reading large amounts of material that shouldn't pollute the main context, spawn a research sub-agent that returns only a digest.
```
main agent → research sub-agent (reads 50 files) → digest → main agent continues
```
**Use when:**
- The main session needs to stay focused on a downstream task
- The investigation result is much smaller than the input it consumes
- The decision quality benefits from the main agent having room to think after
**Examples:** "Find every call site of this deprecated API across the monorepo," "Summarize what these 30 ADRs say about caching."
**Cost:** one isolated sub-agent context. Worth it any time the alternative is loading hundreds of files into the main context.
**On Claude Code, use the built-in `Explore` subagent** rather than defining a custom research persona. `Explore` runs on Haiku, is denied write/edit tools, and is purpose-built for this pattern. Define a custom research subagent only when `Explore` doesn't fit (e.g. you need a domain-specific system prompt the model wouldn't infer).
---
## Claude Code compatibility
This catalog is harness-agnostic, but most readers will run it on Claude Code. Here's how each pattern maps onto Claude Code's primitives — and where the platform enforces our rules for us.
### Where personas live
Plugin subagents go in `agents/` at the plugin root. This repo is a plugin (`.claude-plugin/plugin.json`), so `agents/code-reviewer.md`, `agents/security-auditor.md`, and `agents/test-engineer.md` are auto-discovered when the plugin is enabled. No path configuration needed.
### Subagents vs. Agent Teams
Claude Code has two parallelism primitives. Pattern 3 (parallel fan-out with merge) maps to **subagents**. If you need teammates that talk to each other, use **Agent Teams** instead.
| | Subagents | Agent Teams |
|--|-----------|-------------|
| Coordination | Main agent fans out, sub-agents only report back | Teammates message each other, share a task list |
| Context | Own context window per subagent | Own context window per teammate |
| When to use | Independent tasks producing reports | Collaborative work needing discussion |
| Status | Stable | Experimental — requires `CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1` |
| Cost | Lower | Higher — each teammate is a separate Claude instance |
**The personas in this repo work in both modes.** When spawned as subagents (e.g. by `/ship`), they report findings to the main session. When spawned as teammates (`Spawn a teammate using the security-auditor agent type…`), they can challenge each other's findings directly. The persona definition is the same; only the spawning context changes.
One subtlety: the `skills` and `mcpServers` frontmatter fields in a persona are honored when it runs as a subagent but **ignored when it runs as a teammate** — teammates load skills and MCP servers from your project and user settings, the same as a regular session. If a persona depends on a specific skill or MCP server being loaded, configure it at the session level so it's available in both modes.
### Platform-enforced rules
Two rules in this catalog aren't just convention — Claude Code enforces them:
- **"Subagents cannot spawn other subagents"** (verbatim from the docs). Anti-pattern B (persona-calls-persona) and Anti-pattern D (deep persona trees) cannot exist on Claude Code by construction.
- **"No nested teams"** — teammates cannot spawn their own teams. Same anti-patterns blocked at the team level.
This means you can adopt the patterns in this catalog without worrying about contributors accidentally building the anti-patterns. They'll just fail to load.
### Built-in subagents to know about
Before defining a custom subagent, check whether one of these covers the role:
| Built-in | Purpose |
|----------|---------|
| `Explore` | Read-only codebase search and analysis. Use this for Pattern 5 (research isolation). |
| `Plan` | Read-only research during plan mode. |
| `general-purpose` | Multi-step tasks needing both exploration and modification. |
Don't redefine these. Layer your specialist personas (code-reviewer, security-auditor, test-engineer) on top of them.
### Frontmatter restrictions for plugin agents
Plugin subagents do **not** support the `hooks`, `mcpServers`, or `permissionMode` frontmatter fields — these are silently ignored. If a future persona needs any of those, the user must copy the file into `.claude/agents/` or `~/.claude/agents/` instead.
The fields that DO work in plugin agents are: `name`, `description`, `tools`, `disallowedTools`, `model`, `maxTurns`, `skills`, `memory`, `background`, `effort`, `isolation`, `color`, `initialPrompt`. Use `model` per-persona if you want to optimize cost (e.g. Haiku for `test-engineer` coverage scans, Sonnet for `code-reviewer`, Opus for `security-auditor`).
### Spawning multiple subagents in parallel
In Claude Code, parallel fan-out (Pattern 3) requires issuing **multiple Agent tool calls in a single assistant turn**. Sequential turns serialize execution. `/ship` calls this out explicitly. Any new orchestrator command should do the same.
---
## Worked example: Agent Teams for competing-hypothesis debugging
This example shows when to reach for **Agent Teams** instead of `/ship`'s subagent fan-out. The two patterns look similar from a distance — both spawn the same three personas — but the value comes from a different place.
### The scenario
> *Checkout occasionally hangs for ~30 seconds before completing. It happens roughly once every 50 sessions. No errors in logs. Started after last week's release.*
Plausible root causes (mutually exclusive, all fit the symptoms):
1. A race condition in the new payment-confirmation flow
2. An auth check that occasionally falls through to a slow synchronous network call
3. A missing index on a query that scales with cart size
4. A flaky third-party API where the SDK retries silently before timing out
A single agent will pick the first plausible theory and stop investigating. A `/ship`-style subagent fan-out would have each persona report independently — but their reports never meet, so nothing rules out the wrong theories.
This is exactly the case the Agent Teams docs describe: *"With multiple independent investigators actively trying to disprove each other, the theory that survives is much more likely to be the actual root cause."*
### Why this is *not* a `/ship` job
| | `/ship` (subagents) | Agent Teams |
|--|--------------------|-------------|
| Sub-agents see | The same diff, different lenses | A shared task list, each other's messages |
| Output | Three independent reports → one merge | Adversarial debate → consensus root cause |
| Right when | You want a verdict on a known artifact | You want to *find* the artifact among hypotheses |
`/ship` is a verdict; Agent Teams is an investigation.
### Setup (one-time, per-environment)
Agent Teams is experimental. In `~/.claude/settings.json`:
```json
{
"env": {
"CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1"
}
}
```
Requires Claude Code v2.1.32 or later. The personas in this repo are picked up automatically — no team-config files to author by hand.
### The trigger prompt
Type into the lead session, in natural language:
```
Users report checkout hangs for ~30 seconds intermittently after last
week's release. No errors in logs.
Create an agent team to debug this with competing hypotheses. Spawn
three teammates using the existing agent types:
- code-reviewer — investigate race conditions and blocking calls
in the checkout code path
- security-auditor — investigate auth checks, session handling,
and any synchronous network calls added recently
- test-engineer — propose tests that would distinguish between the
hypotheses and check coverage gaps in checkout
Have them message each other directly to challenge each other's
theories. Update findings as consensus emerges. Only converge when
two teammates agree they can disprove the others'.
```
The lead spawns three teammates referencing the existing persona names. The persona body is **appended** to each teammate's system prompt as additional instructions (on top of the team-coordination instructions the lead installs); the trigger prompt above becomes their task.
### What happens
1. Each teammate runs in its own context window, exploring the codebase from its own lens.
2. Teammates use `message` to send findings to each other directly. The lead doesn't have to relay.
3. The shared task list shows who's investigating what — visible at any time with `Ctrl+T` (in-process mode) or in a tmux pane (split mode).
4. When `code-reviewer` finds a `Promise.all` that should be sequential, it messages `security-auditor` to confirm the auth call isn't part of the race. `security-auditor` checks and replies — either confirming the race is the real issue or producing counter-evidence.
5. `test-engineer` proposes a focused integration test for whichever theory is winning, which the team uses to verify before declaring consensus.
6. The lead synthesizes the converged finding and presents it to you.
You can interrupt at any teammate by cycling with `Shift+Down` and typing — useful for redirecting an investigator who's gone down a wrong path.
### When to clean up
When the investigation lands on a root cause, tell the lead:
```
Clean up the team
```
Always cleanup through the lead, not a teammate (per the docs: teammates lack full team context for cleanup).
### Cost expectation
Three Sonnet teammates running for ~1015 minutes of investigation costs noticeably more than the same three personas spawned as subagents by `/ship`. The justification is *quality of conclusion* — for production debugging where the wrong fix is expensive, the extra tokens are a bargain. For a routine PR review, stick with `/ship`.
### Anti-pattern in this scenario
Do **not** rebuild this as a `/debug` slash command that fans out subagents. Subagents can't message each other — you'd lose the adversarial debate that makes the pattern work. If a workflow keeps coming up, document the trigger prompt above as a snippet rather than wrapping it in a slash command that misuses subagents.
### When *not* to use Agent Teams
- Production-bound verdict on a known diff → use `/ship` (subagents).
- One specialist perspective on one artifact → direct persona invocation.
- Sequential lifecycle (spec → plan → build) → user-driven slash commands (Pattern 4).
- Read-heavy research with a small digest → built-in `Explore` subagent.
Reach for Agent Teams only when teammates **need** to challenge each other to produce the right answer.
---
## Anti-patterns
### A. Router persona ("meta-orchestrator")
A persona whose job is to decide which other persona to call.
```
/work → router-persona → "this needs a review" → code-reviewer → router (paraphrases) → user
```
**Why it fails:**
- Pure routing layer with no domain value
- Adds two paraphrasing hops → information loss + roughly 2× token cost
- The user already knew they wanted a review; they could have called `/review` directly
- Replicates the work that slash commands and intent mapping in `AGENTS.md` already do
**What to do instead:** add or refine slash commands. Document intent → command mapping in `AGENTS.md`.
---
### B. Persona that calls another persona
A `code-reviewer` that internally invokes `security-auditor` when it sees auth code.
**Why it fails:**
- Personas were designed to produce a single perspective; chaining them defeats that
- The summary the calling persona passes loses context the called persona needs
- Failure modes multiply (which persona's output format wins? whose rules apply?)
- Hides cost from the user
**What to do instead:** have the calling persona *recommend* a follow-up audit in its report. The user or a slash command runs the second pass.
---
### C. Sequential orchestrator that paraphrases
An agent that calls `/spec`, then `/plan`, then `/build`, etc. on the user's behalf.
**Why it fails:**
- Loses the human checkpoints that catch wrong-direction work
- Each hand-off summarizes context — accumulated drift over a long pipeline
- Doubles token cost: orchestrator turn + sub-agent turn for every step
- Removes user agency at exactly the points where judgment matters most
**What to do instead:** keep the user as the orchestrator. Document the recommended sequence in `README.md` and let users invoke it.
---
### D. Deep persona trees
`/ship` calls a `pre-ship-coordinator` that calls a `quality-coordinator` that calls `code-reviewer`.
**Why it fails:**
- Each layer adds latency and tokens with no decision value
- Debugging becomes a multi-level investigation
- The leaf personas lose context to multiple summarization steps
**What to do instead:** keep the orchestration depth at most 1 (slash command → personas). The merge happens in the main agent.
---
## Decision flow
When considering a new orchestrated workflow, walk this flow:
```
Is the work one perspective on one artifact?
├── Yes → Direct invocation. Stop.
└── No → Will the same composition repeat?
├── No → Direct invocation, ad hoc. Stop.
└── Yes → Are sub-tasks independent?
├── No → Sequential slash commands run by user (Pattern 4).
└── Yes → Parallel fan-out with merge (Pattern 3).
Validate against the checklist above.
If any check fails → fall back to single-persona command (Pattern 2).
```
---
## When to add a new pattern to this catalog
Add a new entry only after:
1. You've used the pattern at least twice in real work
2. You can name a concrete artifact in this repo that demonstrates it
3. You can explain why an existing pattern wouldn't have worked
4. You can describe its anti-pattern shadow (what people will mistakenly build instead)
Premature catalog entries become aspirational documentation that no one follows.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
# Performance Checklist
Quick reference checklist for web application performance. Use alongside the `performance-optimization` skill.
## Table of Contents
- [Core Web Vitals Targets](#core-web-vitals-targets)
- [TTFB Diagnosis](#ttfb-diagnosis)
- [Frontend Checklist](#frontend-checklist)
- [Backend Checklist](#backend-checklist)
- [Measurement Commands](#measurement-commands)
- [Common Anti-Patterns](#common-anti-patterns)
## Core Web Vitals Targets
| Metric | Good | Needs Work | Poor |
|--------|------|------------|------|
| LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) | ≤ 2.5s | ≤ 4.0s | > 4.0s |
| INP (Interaction to Next Paint) | ≤ 200ms | ≤ 500ms | > 500ms |
| CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) | ≤ 0.1 | ≤ 0.25 | > 0.25 |
## TTFB Diagnosis
When TTFB is slow (> 800ms), check each component in DevTools Network waterfall:
- [ ] **DNS resolution** slow → add `<link rel="dns-prefetch">` or `<link rel="preconnect">` for known origins
- [ ] **TCP/TLS handshake** slow → enable HTTP/2, consider edge deployment, verify keep-alive
- [ ] **Server processing** slow → profile backend, check slow queries, add caching
## Frontend Checklist
### Images
- [ ] Images use modern formats (WebP, AVIF)
- [ ] Images are responsively sized (`srcset` and `sizes`)
- [ ] Images and `<source>` elements have explicit `width` and `height` (prevents CLS in art direction)
- [ ] Below-the-fold images use `loading="lazy"` and `decoding="async"`
- [ ] Hero/LCP images use `fetchpriority="high"` and no lazy loading
### JavaScript
- [ ] Bundle size under 200KB gzipped (initial load)
- [ ] Code splitting with dynamic `import()` for routes and heavy features
- [ ] Tree shaking enabled (verify dependency ships ESM and marks `sideEffects: false`)
- [ ] No blocking JavaScript in `<head>` (use `defer` or `async`)
- [ ] Heavy computation offloaded to Web Workers (if applicable)
- [ ] `React.memo()` on expensive components that re-render with same props
- [ ] `useMemo()` / `useCallback()` only where profiling shows benefit
- [ ] Long tasks (> 50ms) broken up to keep the main thread available — main lever for INP
- [ ] `yieldToMain` pattern used inside long-running loops so input events can run between chunks
- [ ] Modern scheduling APIs used where available: `scheduler.yield()` (preferred), `scheduler.postTask()` with priorities, `isInputPending()` to yield only when needed
- [ ] `requestIdleCallback` for deferrable, non-urgent work (analytics flush, prefetch, warmup)
- [ ] Non-critical work deferred out of event handlers (e.g. analytics, logging) so the response to the interaction is not delayed
- [ ] Third-party scripts loaded with `async` / `defer`, audited for size, and fronted by a facade when heavy (chat widgets, embeds)
### CSS
- [ ] Critical CSS inlined or preloaded
- [ ] No render-blocking CSS for non-critical styles
- [ ] No CSS-in-JS runtime cost in production (use extraction)
### Fonts
- [ ] Limited to 23 font families, 23 weights each (every additional weight is another request)
- [ ] WOFF2 format only (smallest, universal support — skip WOFF/TTF/EOT)
- [ ] Self-hosted when possible (third-party font CDNs add DNS + TCP + TLS round-trips)
- [ ] LCP-critical fonts preloaded: `<link rel="preload" as="font" type="font/woff2" crossorigin>`
- [ ] `font-display: swap` (or `optional` for non-critical) to avoid FOIT blocking render
- [ ] Subsetted via `unicode-range` to ship only the glyphs each page needs
- [ ] Variable fonts considered when multiple weights/styles are required (one file replaces many)
- [ ] Fallback font metrics adjusted with `size-adjust`, `ascent-override`, `descent-override` to reduce CLS on font swap
- [ ] System font stack considered before any custom font
### Network
- [ ] Static assets cached with long `max-age` + content hashing
- [ ] API responses cached where appropriate (`Cache-Control`)
- [ ] HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 enabled
- [ ] Resources preconnected (`<link rel="preconnect">`) for known origins
- [ ] `fetchpriority` used on critical non-image resources (e.g., key `<link rel="preload">`, above-the-fold `<script>`) — not only on `<img>`
- [ ] No unnecessary redirects
### Rendering
- [ ] No layout thrashing (forced synchronous layouts)
- [ ] Animations use `transform` and `opacity` (GPU-accelerated)
- [ ] Long lists use virtualization (e.g., `react-window`)
- [ ] No unnecessary full-page re-renders
- [ ] Off-screen sections use `content-visibility: auto` with `contain-intrinsic-size` to skip layout/paint of non-visible areas
- [ ] No `unload` event handlers and no `Cache-Control: no-store` on HTML responses — preserves back/forward cache (bfcache) eligibility
## Backend Checklist
### Database
- [ ] No N+1 query patterns (use eager loading / joins)
- [ ] Queries have appropriate indexes
- [ ] List endpoints paginated (never `SELECT * FROM table`)
- [ ] Connection pooling configured
- [ ] Slow query logging enabled
### API
- [ ] Response times < 200ms (p95)
- [ ] No synchronous heavy computation in request handlers
- [ ] Bulk operations instead of loops of individual calls
- [ ] Response compression (gzip/brotli)
- [ ] Appropriate caching (in-memory, Redis, CDN)
### Infrastructure
- [ ] CDN for static assets
- [ ] Server located close to users (or edge deployment)
- [ ] Horizontal scaling configured (if needed)
- [ ] Health check endpoint for load balancer
## Measurement Commands
### INP field data and DevTools workflow
1. **Field data first** — check [CrUX Vis](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/crux/vis) or your RUM tool for real-user INP before optimising
2. **Identify slow interactions** — open DevTools → Performance panel → record while interacting; look for long tasks triggered by clicks/keystrokes
3. **Test on mid-range Android** — INP issues often only surface on slower hardware; use a real device or DevTools CPU throttling (4×6× slowdown)
```bash
# Lighthouse CLI
npx lighthouse https://localhost:3000 --output json --output-path ./report.json
# Bundle analysis
npx webpack-bundle-analyzer stats.json
# or for Vite:
npx vite-bundle-visualizer
# Check bundle size
npx bundlesize
# Web Vitals in code
import { onLCP, onINP, onCLS } from 'web-vitals';
onLCP(console.log);
onINP(console.log);
onCLS(console.log);
# INP with interaction-level detail (attribution build)
import { onINP } from 'web-vitals/attribution';
onINP(({ value, attribution }) => {
const { interactionTarget, inputDelay, processingDuration, presentationDelay } = attribution;
console.log({ value, interactionTarget, inputDelay, processingDuration, presentationDelay });
});
```
## Common Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Impact | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| N+1 queries | Linear DB load growth | Use joins, includes, or batch loading |
| Unbounded queries | Memory exhaustion, timeouts | Always paginate, add LIMIT |
| Missing indexes | Slow reads as data grows | Add indexes for filtered/sorted columns |
| Layout thrashing | Jank, dropped frames | Batch DOM reads, then batch writes |
| Unoptimized images | Slow LCP, wasted bandwidth | Use WebP, responsive sizes, lazy load |
| Large bundles | Slow Time to Interactive | Code split, tree shake, audit deps |
| Blocking main thread | Poor INP, unresponsive UI | Chunk long tasks with `scheduler.yield()` / `yieldToMain`, offload to Web Workers |
| Memory leaks | Growing memory, eventual crash | Clean up listeners, intervals, refs |

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
# Security Checklist
Quick reference for web application security. Use alongside the `security-and-hardening` skill.
## Table of Contents
- [Pre-Commit Checks](#pre-commit-checks)
- [Authentication](#authentication)
- [Authorization](#authorization)
- [Input Validation](#input-validation)
- [Security Headers](#security-headers)
- [CORS Configuration](#cors-configuration)
- [Data Protection](#data-protection)
- [Dependency Security](#dependency-security)
- [Error Handling](#error-handling)
- [OWASP Top 10 Quick Reference](#owasp-top-10-quick-reference)
## Pre-Commit Checks
- [ ] No secrets in code (`git diff --cached | grep -i "password\|secret\|api_key\|token"`)
- [ ] `.gitignore` covers: `.env`, `.env.local`, `*.pem`, `*.key`
- [ ] `.env.example` uses placeholder values (not real secrets)
## Authentication
- [ ] Passwords hashed with bcrypt (≥12 rounds), scrypt, or argon2
- [ ] Session cookies: `httpOnly`, `secure`, `sameSite: 'lax'`
- [ ] Session expiration configured (reasonable max-age)
- [ ] Rate limiting on login endpoint (≤10 attempts per 15 minutes)
- [ ] Password reset tokens: time-limited (≤1 hour), single-use
- [ ] Account lockout after repeated failures (optional, with notification)
- [ ] MFA supported for sensitive operations (optional but recommended)
## Authorization
- [ ] Every protected endpoint checks authentication
- [ ] Every resource access checks ownership/role (prevents IDOR)
- [ ] Admin endpoints require admin role verification
- [ ] API keys scoped to minimum necessary permissions
- [ ] JWT tokens validated (signature, expiration, issuer)
## Input Validation
- [ ] All user input validated at system boundaries (API routes, form handlers)
- [ ] Validation uses allowlists (not denylists)
- [ ] String lengths constrained (min/max)
- [ ] Numeric ranges validated
- [ ] Email, URL, and date formats validated with proper libraries
- [ ] File uploads: type restricted, size limited, content verified
- [ ] SQL queries parameterized (no string concatenation)
- [ ] HTML output encoded (use framework auto-escaping)
- [ ] URLs validated before redirect (prevent open redirect)
## Security Headers
```
Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; script-src 'self'
Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
X-Frame-Options: DENY
X-XSS-Protection: 0 (disabled, rely on CSP)
Referrer-Policy: strict-origin-when-cross-origin
Permissions-Policy: camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=()
```
## CORS Configuration
```typescript
// Restrictive (recommended)
cors({
origin: ['https://yourdomain.com', 'https://app.yourdomain.com'],
credentials: true,
methods: ['GET', 'POST', 'PUT', 'PATCH', 'DELETE'],
allowedHeaders: ['Content-Type', 'Authorization'],
})
// NEVER use in production:
cors({ origin: '*' }) // Allows any origin
```
## Data Protection
- [ ] Sensitive fields excluded from API responses (`passwordHash`, `resetToken`, etc.)
- [ ] Sensitive data not logged (passwords, tokens, full CC numbers)
- [ ] PII encrypted at rest (if required by regulation)
- [ ] HTTPS for all external communication
- [ ] Database backups encrypted
## Dependency Security
```bash
# Audit dependencies
npm audit
# Fix automatically where possible
npm audit fix
# Check for critical vulnerabilities
npm audit --audit-level=critical
# Keep dependencies updated
npx npm-check-updates
```
## Error Handling
```typescript
// Production: generic error, no internals
res.status(500).json({
error: { code: 'INTERNAL_ERROR', message: 'Something went wrong' }
});
// NEVER in production:
res.status(500).json({
error: err.message,
stack: err.stack, // Exposes internals
query: err.sql, // Exposes database details
});
```
## OWASP Top 10 Quick Reference
| # | Vulnerability | Prevention |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broken Access Control | Auth checks on every endpoint, ownership verification |
| 2 | Cryptographic Failures | HTTPS, strong hashing, no secrets in code |
| 3 | Injection | Parameterized queries, input validation |
| 4 | Insecure Design | Threat modeling, spec-driven development |
| 5 | Security Misconfiguration | Security headers, minimal permissions, audit deps |
| 6 | Vulnerable Components | `npm audit`, keep deps updated, minimal deps |
| 7 | Auth Failures | Strong passwords, rate limiting, session management |
| 8 | Data Integrity Failures | Verify updates/dependencies, signed artifacts |
| 9 | Logging Failures | Log security events, don't log secrets |
| 10 | SSRF | Validate/allowlist URLs, restrict outbound requests |

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
# Testing Patterns Reference
Quick reference for common testing patterns across the stack. Use alongside the `test-driven-development` skill.
## Table of Contents
- [Test Structure (Arrange-Act-Assert)](#test-structure-arrange-act-assert)
- [Test Naming Conventions](#test-naming-conventions)
- [Common Assertions](#common-assertions)
- [Mocking Patterns](#mocking-patterns)
- [React/Component Testing](#reactcomponent-testing)
- [API / Integration Testing](#api--integration-testing)
- [E2E Testing (Playwright)](#e2e-testing-playwright)
- [Test Anti-Patterns](#test-anti-patterns)
## Test Structure (Arrange-Act-Assert)
```typescript
it('describes expected behavior', () => {
// Arrange: Set up test data and preconditions
const input = { title: 'Test Task', priority: 'high' };
// Act: Perform the action being tested
const result = createTask(input);
// Assert: Verify the outcome
expect(result.title).toBe('Test Task');
expect(result.priority).toBe('high');
expect(result.status).toBe('pending');
});
```
## Test Naming Conventions
```typescript
// Pattern: [unit] [expected behavior] [condition]
describe('TaskService.createTask', () => {
it('creates a task with default pending status', () => {});
it('throws ValidationError when title is empty', () => {});
it('trims whitespace from title', () => {});
it('generates a unique ID for each task', () => {});
});
```
## Common Assertions
```typescript
// Equality
expect(result).toBe(expected); // Strict equality (===)
expect(result).toEqual(expected); // Deep equality (objects/arrays)
expect(result).toStrictEqual(expected); // Deep equality + type matching
// Truthiness
expect(result).toBeTruthy();
expect(result).toBeFalsy();
expect(result).toBeNull();
expect(result).toBeDefined();
expect(result).toBeUndefined();
// Numbers
expect(result).toBeGreaterThan(5);
expect(result).toBeLessThanOrEqual(10);
expect(result).toBeCloseTo(0.3, 5); // Floating point
// Strings
expect(result).toMatch(/pattern/);
expect(result).toContain('substring');
// Arrays / Objects
expect(array).toContain(item);
expect(array).toHaveLength(3);
expect(object).toHaveProperty('key', 'value');
// Errors
expect(() => fn()).toThrow();
expect(() => fn()).toThrow(ValidationError);
expect(() => fn()).toThrow('specific message');
// Async
await expect(asyncFn()).resolves.toBe(value);
await expect(asyncFn()).rejects.toThrow(Error);
```
## Mocking Patterns
### Mock Functions
```typescript
const mockFn = jest.fn();
mockFn.mockReturnValue(42);
mockFn.mockResolvedValue({ data: 'test' });
mockFn.mockImplementation((x) => x * 2);
expect(mockFn).toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(mockFn).toHaveBeenCalledWith('arg1', 'arg2');
expect(mockFn).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
```
### Mock Modules
```typescript
// Mock an entire module
jest.mock('./database', () => ({
query: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue([{ id: 1, title: 'Test' }]),
}));
// Mock specific exports
jest.mock('./utils', () => ({
...jest.requireActual('./utils'),
generateId: jest.fn().mockReturnValue('test-id'),
}));
```
### Mock at Boundaries Only
```
Mock these: Don't mock these:
├── Database calls ├── Internal utility functions
├── HTTP requests ├── Business logic
├── File system operations ├── Data transformations
├── External API calls ├── Validation functions
└── Time/Date (when needed) └── Pure functions
```
## React/Component Testing
```tsx
import { render, screen, fireEvent, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react';
describe('TaskForm', () => {
it('submits the form with entered data', async () => {
const onSubmit = jest.fn();
render(<TaskForm onSubmit={onSubmit} />);
// Find elements by accessible role/label (not test IDs)
await screen.findByRole('textbox', { name: /title/i });
fireEvent.change(screen.getByRole('textbox', { name: /title/i }), {
target: { value: 'New Task' },
});
fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /create/i }));
await waitFor(() => {
expect(onSubmit).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ title: 'New Task' });
});
});
it('shows validation error for empty title', async () => {
render(<TaskForm onSubmit={jest.fn()} />);
fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /create/i }));
expect(await screen.findByText(/title is required/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
});
```
## API / Integration Testing
```typescript
import request from 'supertest';
import { app } from '../src/app';
describe('POST /api/tasks', () => {
it('creates a task and returns 201', async () => {
const response = await request(app)
.post('/api/tasks')
.send({ title: 'Test Task' })
.set('Authorization', `Bearer ${testToken}`)
.expect(201);
expect(response.body).toMatchObject({
id: expect.any(String),
title: 'Test Task',
status: 'pending',
});
});
it('returns 422 for invalid input', async () => {
const response = await request(app)
.post('/api/tasks')
.send({ title: '' })
.set('Authorization', `Bearer ${testToken}`)
.expect(422);
expect(response.body.error.code).toBe('VALIDATION_ERROR');
});
it('returns 401 without authentication', async () => {
await request(app)
.post('/api/tasks')
.send({ title: 'Test' })
.expect(401);
});
});
```
## E2E Testing (Playwright)
```typescript
import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test';
test('user can create and complete a task', async ({ page }) => {
// Navigate and authenticate
await page.goto('/');
await page.fill('[name="email"]', 'test@example.com');
await page.fill('[name="password"]', 'testpass123');
await page.click('button:has-text("Log in")');
// Create a task
await page.click('button:has-text("New Task")');
await page.fill('[name="title"]', 'Buy groceries');
await page.click('button:has-text("Create")');
// Verify task appears
await expect(page.locator('text=Buy groceries')).toBeVisible();
// Complete the task
await page.click('[aria-label="Complete Buy groceries"]');
await expect(page.locator('text=Buy groceries')).toHaveCSS(
'text-decoration-line', 'line-through'
);
});
```
## Test Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Testing implementation details | Breaks on refactor | Test inputs/outputs |
| Snapshot everything | No one reviews snapshot diffs | Assert specific values |
| Shared mutable state | Tests pollute each other | Setup/teardown per test |
| Testing third-party code | Wastes time, not your bug | Mock the boundary |
| Skipping tests to pass CI | Hides real bugs | Fix or delete the test |
| Using `test.skip` permanently | Dead code | Remove or fix it |
| Overly broad assertions | Doesn't catch regressions | Be specific |
| No async error handling | Swallowed errors, false passes | Always `await` async tests |