import live www.sillylaird.ca webrootHEADmain

7 files changed, 628 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d82d72c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,521 @@
+---
+name: code-review-excellence
+description: This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
+version: 0.1.0
+---
+
+# Code Review Excellence
+
+Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Reviewing pull requests and code changes
+- Establishing code review standards for teams
+- Mentoring junior developers through reviews
+- Conducting architecture reviews
+- Creating review checklists and guidelines
+- Improving team collaboration
+- Reducing code review cycle time
+- Maintaining code quality standards
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### 1. The Review Mindset
+
+**Goals of Code Review:**
+- Catch bugs and edge cases
+- Ensure code maintainability
+- Share knowledge across team
+- Enforce coding standards
+- Improve design and architecture
+- Build team culture
+
+**Not the Goals:**
+- Show off knowledge
+- Nitpick formatting (use linters)
+- Block progress unnecessarily
+- Rewrite to your preference
+
+### 2. Effective Feedback
+
+**Good Feedback is:**
+- Specific and actionable
+- Educational, not judgmental
+- Focused on the code, not the person
+- Balanced (praise good work too)
+- Prioritized (critical vs nice-to-have)
+
+```markdown
+❌ Bad: "This is wrong."
+✅ Good: "This could cause a race condition when multiple users
+         access simultaneously. Consider using a mutex here."
+
+❌ Bad: "Why didn't you use X pattern?"
+✅ Good: "Have you considered the Repository pattern? It would
+         make this easier to test. Here's an example: [link]"
+
+❌ Bad: "Rename this variable."
+✅ Good: "[nit] Consider `userCount` instead of `uc` for
+         clarity. Not blocking if you prefer to keep it."
+```
+
+### 3. Review Scope
+
+**What to Review:**
+- Logic correctness and edge cases
+- Security vulnerabilities
+- Performance implications
+- Test coverage and quality
+- Error handling
+- Documentation and comments
+- API design and naming
+- Architectural fit
+
+**What Not to Review Manually:**
+- Code formatting (use Prettier, Black, etc.)
+- Import organization
+- Linting violations
+- Simple typos
+
+## Review Process
+
+### Phase 1: Context Gathering (2-3 minutes)
+
+```markdown
+Before diving into code, understand:
+
+1. Read PR description and linked issue
+2. Check PR size (>400 lines? Ask to split)
+3. Review CI/CD status (tests passing?)
+4. Understand the business requirement
+5. Note any relevant architectural decisions
+```
+
+### Phase 2: High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)
+
+```markdown
+1. **Architecture & Design**
+   - Does the solution fit the problem?
+   - Are there simpler approaches?
+   - Is it consistent with existing patterns?
+   - Will it scale?
+
+2. **File Organization**
+   - Are new files in the right places?
+   - Is code grouped logically?
+   - Are there duplicate files?
+
+3. **Testing Strategy**
+   - Are there tests?
+   - Do tests cover edge cases?
+   - Are tests readable?
+```
+
+### Phase 3: Line-by-Line Review (10-20 minutes)
+
+```markdown
+For each file:
+
+1. **Logic & Correctness**
+   - Edge cases handled?
+   - Off-by-one errors?
+   - Null/undefined checks?
+   - Race conditions?
+
+2. **Security**
+   - Input validation?
+   - SQL injection risks?
+   - XSS vulnerabilities?
+   - Sensitive data exposure?
+
+3. **Performance**
+   - N+1 queries?
+   - Unnecessary loops?
+   - Memory leaks?
+   - Blocking operations?
+
+4. **Maintainability**
+   - Clear variable names?
+   - Functions doing one thing?
+   - Complex code commented?
+   - Magic numbers extracted?
+```
+
+### Phase 4: Summary & Decision (2-3 minutes)
+
+```markdown
+1. Summarize key concerns
+2. Highlight what you liked
+3. Make clear decision:
+   - ✅ Approve
+   - 💬 Comment (minor suggestions)
+   - 🔄 Request Changes (must address)
+4. Offer to pair if complex
+```
+
+## Review Techniques
+
+### Technique 1: The Checklist Method
+
+```markdown
+## Security Checklist
+- [ ] User input validated and sanitized
+- [ ] SQL queries use parameterization
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization checked
+- [ ] Secrets not hardcoded
+- [ ] Error messages don't leak info
+
+## Performance Checklist
+- [ ] No N+1 queries
+- [ ] Database queries indexed
+- [ ] Large lists paginated
+- [ ] Expensive operations cached
+- [ ] No blocking I/O in hot paths
+
+## Testing Checklist
+- [ ] Happy path tested
+- [ ] Edge cases covered
+- [ ] Error cases tested
+- [ ] Test names are descriptive
+- [ ] Tests are deterministic
+```
+
+### Technique 2: The Question Approach
+
+Instead of stating problems, ask questions to encourage thinking:
+
+```markdown
+❌ "This will fail if the list is empty."
+✅ "What happens if `items` is an empty array?"
+
+❌ "You need error handling here."
+✅ "How should this behave if the API call fails?"
+
+❌ "This is inefficient."
+✅ "I see this loops through all users. Have we considered
+    the performance impact with 100k users?"
+```
+
+### Technique 3: Suggest, Don't Command
+
+```markdown
+## Use Collaborative Language
+
+❌ "You must change this to use async/await"
+✅ "Suggestion: async/await might make this more readable:
+    ```typescript
+    async function fetchUser(id: string) {
+        const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', id);
+        return user;
+    }
+    ```
+    What do you think?"
+
+❌ "Extract this into a function"
+✅ "This logic appears in 3 places. Would it make sense to
+    extract it into a shared utility function?"
+```
+
+### Technique 4: Differentiate Severity
+
+```markdown
+Use labels to indicate priority:
+
+🔴 [blocking] - Must fix before merge
+🟡 [important] - Should fix, discuss if disagree
+🟢 [nit] - Nice to have, not blocking
+💡 [suggestion] - Alternative approach to consider
+📚 [learning] - Educational comment, no action needed
+🎉 [praise] - Good work, keep it up!
+
+Example:
+"🔴 [blocking] This SQL query is vulnerable to injection.
+ Please use parameterized queries."
+
+"🟢 [nit] Consider renaming `data` to `userData` for clarity."
+
+"🎉 [praise] Excellent test coverage! This will catch edge cases."
+```
+
+## Language-Specific Patterns
+
+### Python Code Review
+
+```python
+# Check for Python-specific issues
+
+# ❌ Mutable default arguments
+def add_item(item, items=[]):  # Bug! Shared across calls
+    items.append(item)
+    return items
+
+# ✅ Use None as default
+def add_item(item, items=None):
+    if items is None:
+        items = []
+    items.append(item)
+    return items
+
+# ❌ Catching too broad
+try:
+    result = risky_operation()
+except:  # Catches everything, even KeyboardInterrupt!
+    pass
+
+# ✅ Catch specific exceptions
+try:
+    result = risky_operation()
+except ValueError as e:
+    logger.error(f"Invalid value: {e}")
+    raise
+
+# ❌ Using mutable class attributes
+class User:
+    permissions = []  # Shared across all instances!
+
+# ✅ Initialize in __init__
+class User:
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.permissions = []
+```
+
+### TypeScript/JavaScript Code Review
+
+```typescript
+// Check for TypeScript-specific issues
+
+// ❌ Using any defeats type safety
+function processData(data: any) {  // Avoid any
+    return data.value;
+}
+
+// ✅ Use proper types
+interface DataPayload {
+    value: string;
+}
+function processData(data: DataPayload) {
+    return data.value;
+}
+
+// ❌ Not handling async errors
+async function fetchUser(id: string) {
+    const response = await fetch(`/api/users/${id}`);
+    return response.json();  // What if network fails?
+}
+
+// ✅ Handle errors properly
+async function fetchUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
+    try {
+        const response = await fetch(`/api/users/${id}`);
+        if (!response.ok) {
+            throw new Error(`HTTP ${response.status}`);
+        }
+        return await response.json();
+    } catch (error) {
+        console.error('Failed to fetch user:', error);
+        throw error;
+    }
+}
+
+// ❌ Mutation of props
+function UserProfile({ user }: Props) {
+    user.lastViewed = new Date();  // Mutating prop!
+    return <div>{user.name}</div>;
+}
+
+// ✅ Don't mutate props
+function UserProfile({ user, onView }: Props) {
+    useEffect(() => {
+        onView(user.id);  // Notify parent to update
+    }, [user.id]);
+    return <div>{user.name}</div>;
+}
+```
+
+## Advanced Review Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Architectural Review
+
+```markdown
+When reviewing significant changes:
+
+1. **Design Document First**
+   - For large features, request design doc before code
+   - Review design with team before implementation
+   - Agree on approach to avoid rework
+
+2. **Review in Stages**
+   - First PR: Core abstractions and interfaces
+   - Second PR: Implementation
+   - Third PR: Integration and tests
+   - Easier to review, faster to iterate
+
+3. **Consider Alternatives**
+   - "Have we considered using [pattern/library]?"
+   - "What's the tradeoff vs. the simpler approach?"
+   - "How will this evolve as requirements change?"
+```
+
+### Pattern 2: Test Quality Review
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Poor test: Implementation detail testing
+test('increments counter variable', () => {
+    const component = render(<Counter />);
+    const button = component.getByRole('button');
+    fireEvent.click(button);
+    expect(component.state.counter).toBe(1);  // Testing internal state
+});
+
+// ✅ Good test: Behavior testing
+test('displays incremented count when clicked', () => {
+    render(<Counter />);
+    const button = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /increment/i });
+    fireEvent.click(button);
+    expect(screen.getByText('Count: 1')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+
+// Review questions for tests:
+// - Do tests describe behavior, not implementation?
+// - Are test names clear and descriptive?
+// - Do tests cover edge cases?
+// - Are tests independent (no shared state)?
+// - Can tests run in any order?
+```
+
+### Pattern 3: Security Review
+
+```markdown
+## Security Review Checklist
+
+### Authentication & Authorization
+- [ ] Is authentication required where needed?
+- [ ] Are authorization checks before every action?
+- [ ] Is JWT validation proper (signature, expiry)?
+- [ ] Are API keys/secrets properly secured?
+
+### Input Validation
+- [ ] All user inputs validated?
+- [ ] File uploads restricted (size, type)?
+- [ ] SQL queries parameterized?
+- [ ] XSS protection (escape output)?
+
+### Data Protection
+- [ ] Passwords hashed (bcrypt/argon2)?
+- [ ] Sensitive data encrypted at rest?
+- [ ] HTTPS enforced for sensitive data?
+- [ ] PII handled according to regulations?
+
+### Common Vulnerabilities
+- [ ] No eval() or similar dynamic execution?
+- [ ] No hardcoded secrets?
+- [ ] CSRF protection for state-changing operations?
+- [ ] Rate limiting on public endpoints?
+```
+
+## Giving Difficult Feedback
+
+### Pattern: The Sandwich Method (Modified)
+
+```markdown
+Traditional: Praise + Criticism + Praise (feels fake)
+
+Better: Context + Specific Issue + Helpful Solution
+
+Example:
+"I noticed the payment processing logic is inline in the
+controller. This makes it harder to test and reuse.
+
+[Specific Issue]
+The calculateTotal() function mixes tax calculation,
+discount logic, and database queries, making it difficult
+to unit test and reason about.
+
+[Helpful Solution]
+Could we extract this into a PaymentService class? That
+would make it testable and reusable. I can pair with you
+on this if helpful."
+```
+
+### Handling Disagreements
+
+```markdown
+When author disagrees with your feedback:
+
+1. **Seek to Understand**
+   "Help me understand your approach. What led you to
+    choose this pattern?"
+
+2. **Acknowledge Valid Points**
+   "That's a good point about X. I hadn't considered that."
+
+3. **Provide Data**
+   "I'm concerned about performance. Can we add a benchmark
+    to validate the approach?"
+
+4. **Escalate if Needed**
+   "Let's get [architect/senior dev] to weigh in on this."
+
+5. **Know When to Let Go**
+   If it's working and not a critical issue, approve it.
+   Perfection is the enemy of progress.
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Review Promptly**: Within 24 hours, ideally same day
+2. **Limit PR Size**: 200-400 lines max for effective review
+3. **Review in Time Blocks**: 60 minutes max, take breaks
+4. **Use Review Tools**: GitHub, GitLab, or dedicated tools
+5. **Automate What You Can**: Linters, formatters, security scans
+6. **Build Rapport**: Emoji, praise, and empathy matter
+7. **Be Available**: Offer to pair on complex issues
+8. **Learn from Others**: Review others' review comments
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+- **Perfectionism**: Blocking PRs for minor style preferences
+- **Scope Creep**: "While you're at it, can you also..."
+- **Inconsistency**: Different standards for different people
+- **Delayed Reviews**: Letting PRs sit for days
+- **Ghosting**: Requesting changes then disappearing
+- **Rubber Stamping**: Approving without actually reviewing
+- **Bike Shedding**: Debating trivial details extensively
+
+## Templates
+
+### PR Review Comment Template
+
+```markdown
+## Summary
+[Brief overview of what was reviewed]
+
+## Strengths
+- [What was done well]
+- [Good patterns or approaches]
+
+## Required Changes
+🔴 [Blocking issue 1]
+🔴 [Blocking issue 2]
+
+## Suggestions
+💡 [Improvement 1]
+💡 [Improvement 2]
+
+## Questions
+❓ [Clarification needed on X]
+❓ [Alternative approach consideration]
+
+## Verdict
+✅ Approve after addressing required changes
+```
+
+## Resources
+
+- **references/code-review-best-practices.md**: Comprehensive review guidelines
+- **references/common-bugs-checklist.md**: Language-specific bugs to watch for
+- **references/security-review-guide.md**: Security-focused review checklist
+- **assets/pr-review-template.md**: Standard review comment template
+- **assets/review-checklist.md**: Quick reference checklist
+- **scripts/pr-analyzer.py**: Analyze PR complexity and suggest reviewers
diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/assets/pr-review-template.md b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/assets/pr-review-template.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a036b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/assets/pr-review-template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+## Summary
+- Scope:
+- Overall verdict:
+
+## Strengths
+- 
+
+## Required changes
+- 
+
+## Suggestions
+- 
diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/assets/review-checklist.md b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/assets/review-checklist.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c122834
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/assets/review-checklist.md
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+- Intent understood
+- Correctness checked
+- Tests reviewed
+- Security checked
+- Performance checked
+- Decision recorded
diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/code-review-best-practices.md b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/code-review-best-practices.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..65c37bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/code-review-best-practices.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Code Review Best Practices
+
+## Default review order
+1. Understand intent and scope.
+2. Check architecture and correctness.
+3. Check tests and failure handling.
+4. Check security and performance risks.
+5. Leave clear, prioritized comments.
+
+## Comment severity
+- `blocking` - correctness, security, data loss, major maintainability issue
+- `important` - should be fixed before merge if practical
+- `nit` - polish only
+
+## Good reviewer habits
+- summarize first,
+- separate required changes from suggestions,
+- quote the code path or failure mode,
+- praise good decisions when they matter.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/common-bugs-checklist.md b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/common-bugs-checklist.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5e62425
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/common-bugs-checklist.md
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Common Bugs Checklist
+
+- null / undefined handling
+- off-by-one and empty-input behavior
+- race conditions or double-submit paths
+- missing authorization checks
+- silent error swallowing
+- expensive loops or repeated queries
+- test gaps on unhappy paths
diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/security-review-guide.md b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/security-review-guide.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d15619f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/references/security-review-guide.md
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+# Security Review Guide
+
+## Check for
+- unsanitized input,
+- SQL or shell injection,
+- insecure deserialization,
+- secret leakage,
+- missing authz checks,
+- unsafe filesystem or network defaults.
+
+## Review note pattern
+`Blocking: this path accepts untrusted input and passes it to X without validation.`
diff --git a/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/scripts/pr-analyzer.py b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/scripts/pr-analyzer.py
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..86d2b26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/code-review-excellence/scripts/pr-analyzer.py
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import subprocess
+from pathlib import Path
+
+
+def parse_args() -> argparse.Namespace:
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description='Summarize git diff size for review planning.')
+    parser.add_argument('--repo', default='.', help='Repository path')
+    parser.add_argument('--base', default='HEAD~1', help='Base revision')
+    parser.add_argument('--head', default='HEAD', help='Head revision')
+    return parser.parse_args()
+
+
+def main() -> int:
+    args = parse_args()
+    repo = Path(args.repo).resolve()
+    result = subprocess.run(
+        ['git', '-C', str(repo), 'diff', '--numstat', args.base, args.head],
+        capture_output=True,
+        text=True,
+        check=False,
+    )
+    if result.returncode != 0:
+        print(result.stderr.strip() or 'git diff failed')
+        return result.returncode
+    files = 0
+    added = 0
+    deleted = 0
+    for line in result.stdout.splitlines():
+        parts = line.split('	')
+        if len(parts) != 3:
+            continue
+        a, d, _ = parts
+        if a.isdigit():
+            added += int(a)
+        if d.isdigit():
+            deleted += int(d)
+        files += 1
+    print(f'files={files}')
+    print(f'added={added}')
+    print(f'deleted={deleted}')
+    return 0
+
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    raise SystemExit(main())