src/hestai_mcp/_bundled_hub/library/skills/build-philosophy/SKILL.md
Comprehensive build philosophy including system awareness, MIP for code, decision frameworks, and wisdom paths. Prevents accumulative complexity through systematic thinking.
npx skillsauth add elevanaltd/hestai-mcp build-philosophyInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
===SKILL:BUILD_PHILOSOPHY=== META: TYPE::SKILL VERSION::"2.0" PURPOSE::"Comprehensive build philosophy framework preventing accumulative complexity" SOURCE::"Consolidated from ~/.claude/skills/build-execution/*.oct.md"
§1::SYSTEM_AWARENESS_MANDATE CORE_PRINCIPLE::"Code change → System ripple → Understand ripples BEFORE modification"
SYSTEM_THINKING::[ MAP_IMPACT::[ "Trace all imports/uses of changed code", "Follow data flow dependencies", "Identify shared state impacts", "Document ripple paths explicitly" ], LOCAL_CHANGE_SYSTEM_CONTEXT::"Simple edit can break distant components - think globally", LOCAL_OPTIMIZATION_DEGRADES::"Faster function ≠ better system if breaks caching", MINIMAL_CODE_SERVES::"Essential complexity serves users, accumulative serves maintenance burden" ]
MAINTAIN_LIVING_SYSTEM::"Not editing text files - every change affects production"
§2::MINIMAL_INTERVENTION_PRINCIPLE DEFINITION::[ ESSENTIAL::"Code serving measurable user value", ACCUMULATIVE::"Code adding maintenance burden without proportional user value" ]
DECISION::"Could we achieve same outcome with simpler means?"
PROCESS::"Remove components until UX degrades → identify break point → restore last essential → minimal achieved"
ENFORCEMENT::[ JUSTIFICATION::"User problem? Why not extend existing? Simplification test?", EVIDENCE::"What removed? Break point found? Minimal restoration done?", SIGNOFF::"Reviewer verifies minimality credible, no obvious bloat" ]
§3::PHILOSOPHY_FRAMEWORK UNDERSTAND_SHAPE_ACT::[ UNDERSTAND::[ "What is the user problem?", "System connections and dependencies?", "Core assumptions and invariants?", "WARNING: 'just try this', 'probably works', 'not sure how'" ], SHAPE::[ "Simplest solution satisfying requirements", "Obvious to future readers (6mo test)", "Easy test isolation", "Minimal coupling", "PATTERNS: proven>novel, simple>clever, explicit>implicit" ], ACT::[ "TDD: failing test first", "Implement minimal solution", "Refactor for essential simplification only", "Commit atomically", "SCOPE: requested ≠ while_here, one concern per commit" ] ]
WISDOM_PATH::[ BETWEEN::"Complexity labyrinth ← minimal effective → Oversimplification sea", AVOID_LABYRINTH::"Over-abstracted, premature generalization, unjustified patterns", AVOID_OVERSIMPLIFICATION::"Unjustified duplication, skipping necessary abstractions", MINIMAL_EFFECTIVE::[ "Just enough abstraction to prevent duplication", "Just enough flexibility to handle known variations", "Just enough structure to maintain coherence" ] ]
§4::DECISION_GATES BEFORE_CODE::[ "Is this solving a user problem?", "Can we extend existing components?", "Is this feature explicitly requested?", "Are we solving a problem that doesn't exist yet?", "IF accumulative → DON'T ADD" ]
BEFORE_ABSTRACTION::[ "Rule of Three: 1st concrete → 2nd copy → 3rd abstract", "Does it reduce cognitive load?", "Is it understandable without docs?", "Cost if requirements change?", "IF mysterious → KEEP CONCRETE" ]
BEFORE_OPTIMIZATION::[ "Is this a measured bottleneck?", "Have we profiled first?", "Is the gain measured?", "PROFILE FIRST → IF not measured → DON'T OPTIMIZE" ]
BEFORE_TESTS::[ "Does this test user-facing behavior?", "Does it validate component contract?", "Will it catch real bugs?", "Testing behavior not implementation?", "IF not user-facing → RECONSIDER" ]
BEFORE_REFACTOR::[ "Does this improve clarity?", "Does it reduce complexity?", "Are tests still green?", "Will it make future changes easier?", "SAFETY: small steps, test after each, revert if fail", "IF behavior changes → NOT REFACTORING, IT'S A FEATURE" ]
§5::PRACTICAL_EXAMPLES RIPPLE_MAP_EXAMPLE::[ CHANGE::"processUser(id) → processUser(user)", DIRECT::"10 files need to pass user object", INDIRECT::"Tests need fixtures not IDs, API needs hydration, caching changes", FLOW::"DB queries move to callers, N+1 risk emerges", OUTCOME::"Simple signature change → 20 files + performance testing + staged migration" ]
WITH_WITHOUT_PHILOSOPHY::[ REQUEST::"Add PDF export", WITHOUT::"Add library → create service → endpoint → ship = 500 lines untested", WITH::[ "UNDERSTAND: Who? Why? How often? → 1 user, monthly report, using screenshots now", "SHAPE: Screenshot API suffices → 10 lines", "ACT: TEST → IMPLEMENT → TEST → DOCUMENT = 50 lines tested, solves actual need" ] ]
§6::WISDOM CORE_TRUTH::"Code change = system change. Think systemically + Code minimally + Verify rigorously"
QUALITY_HIERARCHY::[ BEST::"Code you don't write", SECOND::"Code that is obvious, testable, and minimal" ]
RIPPLE_AWARENESS::"Between isolated edit (wrong) and system paralysis (wrong) lies systematic local change with global awareness"
===END===
tools
Supabase test harness patterns including local Supabase setup, test user creation via Auth Admin API, RLS testing, migration testing (db_reset), seed sequences, rate limiting, and environment detection. Use when setting up Supabase testing infrastructure, creating test users, troubleshooting Supabase test failures, or implementing RLS validation. Triggers on: supabase test setup, test user creation, supabase local testing, RLS testing, migration testing, supabase test harness, auth test helpers.
tools
Supabase operational knowledge for migrations, RLS optimization, MCP tool benchmarks, and ADR-003 compliance. Use when validating database migrations, optimizing Row-Level Security policies, checking MCP tool performance, or ensuring Supabase operational standards. Triggers on: migration validation, RLS patterns, Supabase benchmarks, ADR-003, database state tracking, schema governance.
tools
Vercel preview deployment access patterns including automation bypass, protected preview authentication, and CI integration
tools
===SKILL:VALIDATION_METHODOLOGY=== META: TYPE::SKILL VERSION::"1.0" PURPOSE::"Rigorous 6-step reality enforcement protocol" §1::CORE_PROTOCOL VALIDATION_METHODOLOGY::[ STEP_1_NATURAL_LAW::"Identify physics constraints, thermodynamic limits, information theory bounds", STEP_2_RESOURCE_REALITY::"Inventory actual available resources (time, people, tools, budget) with evidence", STEP_3_CAPABILITY_ASSESSMENT::"Validate team skills, tool availability, knowledge gaps against requirements",