format: apply repo prettier (3.8.1) to the folded skills tree

963 markdown files reformatted with the repository's pinned prettier so pnpm format:check covers the folded tree like every other repo file. The formatter's embedded-language pass also normalized code fences (TS semicolons, closed HTML tags in examples, lowercased CSS hex colors, one renumbered list that skipped an index). Alphanumeric token deltas vs the fold commit were audited file-by-file; all are formatter-equivalent markup normalizations plus the four sanitized skills.
2026-08-19 14:37:17 -05:00
parent d2eeb64433
commit 1a822493ba
962 changed files with 29594 additions and 27188 deletions
@@ -16,12 +16,14 @@ Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
 ## When to Use

 **Always:**
+
 - New features
 - Bug fixes
 - Refactoring
 - Behavior changes

 **Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
+
 - Throwaway prototypes
 - Generated code
 - Configuration files
@@ -37,6 +39,7 @@ NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
 Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

 **No exceptions:**
+
 - Don't keep it as "reference"
 - Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
 - Don't look at it
@@ -82,12 +85,13 @@ test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
    return 'success';
  };

-  const result = await retryOperation(operation);
+const result = await retryOperation(operation);

-  expect(result).toBe('success');
-  expect(attempts).toBe(3);
+expect(result).toBe('success');
+expect(attempts).toBe(3);
 });
-```
+
+````
 Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
 </Good>

@@ -101,11 +105,13 @@ test('retry works', async () => {
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
 });
-```
+````
+
 Vague name, tests mock not code
 </Bad>

 **Requirements:**
+
 - One behavior
 - Clear name
 - Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
@@ -119,6 +125,7 @@ npm test path/to/test.test.ts
 ```

 Confirm:
+
 - Test fails (not errors)
 - Failure message is expected
 - Fails because feature missing (not typos)
@@ -174,6 +181,7 @@ npm test path/to/test.test.ts
 ```

 Confirm:
+
 - Test passes
 - Other tests still pass
 - Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
@@ -185,6 +193,7 @@ Confirm:
 ### REFACTOR - Clean Up

 After green only:
+
 - Remove duplication
 - Improve names
 - Extract helpers
@@ -197,17 +206,18 @@ Next failing test for next feature.

 ## Good Tests

-| Quality | Good | Bad |
-|---------|------|-----|
-| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
-| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
-| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
+| Quality          | Good                                | Bad                                                 |
+| ---------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Minimal**      | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
+| **Clear**        | Name describes behavior             | `test('test1')`                                     |
+| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API            | Obscures what code should do                        |

 ## Why Order Matters

 **"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**

 Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+
 - Might test wrong thing
 - Might test implementation, not behavior
 - Might miss edge cases you forgot
@@ -218,6 +228,7 @@ Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
 **"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**

 Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
+
 - No record of what you tested
 - Can't re-run when code changes
 - Easy to forget cases under pressure
@@ -228,6 +239,7 @@ Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
 **"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**

 Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
+
 - Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
 - Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)

@@ -236,6 +248,7 @@ The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is
 **"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**

 TDD IS pragmatic:
+
 - Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
 - Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
 - Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
@@ -255,19 +268,19 @@ Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify yo

 ## Common Rationalizations

-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
-| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
-| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
-| "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
-| "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
-| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
-| "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
-| "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
+| Excuse                                 | Reality                                                                 |
+| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| "Too simple to test"                   | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.                              |
+| "I'll test after"                      | Tests passing immediately prove nothing.                                |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals"       | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested"              | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.                           |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful"         | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.           |
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.             |
+| "Need to explore first"                | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.                           |
+| "Test hard = design unclear"           | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.                             |
+| "TDD will slow me down"                | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.                      |
+| "Manual test faster"                   | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.           |
+| "Existing code has no tests"           | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.                       |

 ## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

@@ -292,6 +305,7 @@ Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify yo
 **Bug:** Empty email accepted

 **RED**
+
 ```typescript
 test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
@@ -300,12 +314,14 @@ test('rejects empty email', async () => {
 ```

 **Verify RED**
+
 ```bash
 $ npm test
 FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
 ```

 **GREEN**
+
 ```typescript
 function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
@@ -316,6 +332,7 @@ function submitForm(data: FormData) {
 ```

 **Verify GREEN**
+
 ```bash
 $ npm test
 PASS
@@ -341,12 +358,12 @@ Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.

 ## When Stuck

-| Problem | Solution |
-|---------|----------|
+| Problem                | Solution                                                             |
+| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 | Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
-| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
-| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
-| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
+| Test too complicated   | Design too complicated. Simplify interface.                          |
+| Must mock everything   | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.                          |
+| Test setup huge        | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.                     |

 ## Debugging Integration

@@ -357,6 +374,7 @@ Never fix bugs without a test.
 ## Testing Anti-Patterns

 When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:
+
 - Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
 - Adding test-only methods to production classes
 - Mocking without understanding dependencies