evandro/dev-workflows
1
0 Fork 0
Code Issues 2 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: redesign do README (padrão TwitterBR-MOD) — dados atualizados

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
evandro committed 2026-10-13 21:47:18 -03:00
1 parent c17192c9fe
commit 3891915df3
1 file changed
+163 -190
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
README.md
+163 -190
View File
@@ -2,142 +2,63 @@
# Dev Workflows # Dev Workflows
**Agent workflows as SKILL.md files**: frontend, backend, architecture and security code review that never skip verification. **Agent workflows as `SKILL.md` files for frontend, backend, architecture, security review and READMEs.
Every phase ends in a verification step, not a claim.**
[![License: MIT](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-MIT-blue.svg)](LICENSE) ![License](https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-blue)
[![Python 3.10+](https://img.shields.io/badge/Python-3.10+-3776AB?logo=python&logoColor=white)](qa/wf_quality_harness.py) ![Workflows](https://img.shields.io/badge/workflows-5-informational)
[![Agent Skills](https://img.shields.io/badge/Agent%20Skills-1.0-8A2BE2)](https://agentskills.io) ![Vendored skills](https://img.shields.io/badge/vendored%20skills-10-informational)
[![PRs Welcome](https://img.shields.io/badge/PRs-welcome-brightgreen.svg)](https://github.com/evandrodevbr/dev-workflows/pulls)
Turn your coding agent into a repeatable, verifiable process. Each workflow defines phases, concrete verification steps, real commands, and hard rules. The agent delivers work that can be *checked*, not just *claimed*. [Workflows](#workflows) · [Install](#install) · [How it works](#how-it-works) · [QA harness](#the-qa-harness) · [Known limits](#known-limits)
**🇧🇷 [Ler em português](README.pt-BR.md)** **[Ler em português](README.pt-BR.md)**
</div> </div>
--- > [!NOTE]
> **Project state:** five commits between 2026-08-19 (workflows, bilingual README,
> `wf-readme`) and 2026-08-24 (ten security skills vendored under `skills/`). Every
> workflow declares `version: 1.0.0`. The workflow bodies are written in Portuguese;
> this README is in English and [README.pt-BR.md](README.pt-BR.md) is the Portuguese copy.
## Why > [!IMPORTANT]
> **Only `wf-security-review` works out of the box.** Its skills are vendored in
Agents are great at generating code and terrible at admitting they don't know. This project fixes the second part. > [`skills/`](skills/NOTICE.md). The frontend, backend, architecture and README
> workflows load third-party skills that are **not** in this repository and must be
Every workflow here forces the agent to **prove** the work at each phase: > installed separately ([list below](#skills-the-workflows-load)). The security
> workflow also needs network access: it must query OSV.dev, the GitHub Advisory DB
- **Verification steps**: run the build, run the tests, hit the API, consult the registry. Not "I think it works". > and NVD, and stamp the date on the report.
- **Acceptance criteria**: checkbox gates that must be marked before a phase closes.
- **Hard rules**: "never merge with a red build", "never claim 'no CVE' without querying OSV.dev".
- **A QA harness**: a scorecard that measures workflow quality objectively, plus meta-tests that corrupt the harness to prove it detects regressions.
## Table of contents
- [Workflows](#workflows)
- [Security: do not trust the training cutoff](#security-do-not-trust-the-training-cutoff)
- [Skills used, and their owners](#skills-used-and-their-owners)
- [Quick start](#quick-start)
- [The QA harness](#the-qa-harness)
- [Quality tests and measured gains](#quality-tests-and-measured-gains)
- [Repository layout](#repository-layout)
- [License](#license)
## Workflows ## Workflows
| Workflow | File | Covers | | Workflow | File | Phases | Covers |
|---|---|---| |---|---|---|---|
| 🎨 **Frontend / UI** | [workflows/wf-frontend.md](workflows/wf-frontend.md) | Design direction before code, anti-AI-slop, React performance, visual QA for PDFs | | **Frontend / UI** | [`wf-frontend.md`](workflows/wf-frontend.md) | DESIGN, BUILD, REVIEW | Design direction before code, anti-AI-slop, React performance, visual QA for PDFs |
| ⚙️ **Backend / API** | [workflows/wf-backend.md](workflows/wf-backend.md) | Contract before handler, safe defaults, OWASP audit, tests + adversarial bug hunt | | **Backend / API** | [`wf-backend.md`](workflows/wf-backend.md) | PLAN, BUILD, SECURITY, TEST + BUG HUNT | Contract before handler, safe defaults, OWASP audit, tests and adversarial bug hunt |
| 🏗️ **Architecture** | [workflows/wf-architecture.md](workflows/wf-architecture.md) | Measurable requirements, C4 diagrams, ADRs, threat modeling, review | | **Architecture** | [`wf-architecture.md`](workflows/wf-architecture.md) | REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN, DOCS, REVIEW | Measurable requirements, C4 diagrams, ADRs, threat modeling |
| 🛡️ **Security review** | [workflows/wf-security-review.md](workflows/wf-security-review.md) | Code review (front + back), known CVEs **and** live lookup of new ones | | **Security review** | [`wf-security-review.md`](workflows/wf-security-review.md) | SCOPE, HUNT, CONSULT, CODE REVIEW, REPORT + GATE | Front and back code review, known CVEs and a live lookup of new ones |
| 📄 **README** | [workflows/wf-readme.md](workflows/wf-readme.md) | Create/audit/rewrite READMEs grounded in real repo facts | | **README** | [`wf-readme.md`](workflows/wf-readme.md) | SCAN, CLASSIFY, AUDIT or DRAFT, GENERATE, VERIFY + VALIDATE | Create, audit or rewrite READMEs grounded in real repo facts |
Each file is a standard `SKILL.md`. The `description` in the frontmatter is the trigger: when the agent's context matches it, the workflow loads automatically. Works in [Hermes Agent](https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com), Claude Code, and anything that reads the Agent Skills format. Each file is a standard `SKILL.md`: the `description` in the frontmatter is the
trigger, so the workflow loads when the agent's context matches it.
## Security: do not trust the training cutoff Why they exist: agents generate code well and admit ignorance badly. Each workflow
forces the agent to prove the work at every phase:
A model's knowledge of CVEs stops at its training date. Anything disclosed after that, it has never seen, so "no vulnerabilities" from memory is a guess, not an answer. - **Verification steps:** run the build, run the tests, hit the API, consult the registry.
- **Acceptance criteria:** checkbox gates that must be marked before a phase closes.
- **Hard rules:** "never merge with a red build", "never claim 'no CVE' without querying OSV.dev".
- **A QA harness:** a scorecard for workflow quality, plus meta-tests that corrupt the harness to prove it catches regressions.
The security workflow is built around that fact: ## Install
```
Code/diff → SCOPE → HUNT (known CVEs) → CONSULT (live sources) → CODE REVIEW → REPORT + GATE
│ │
│ └─ OSV.dev · GitHub Advisory DB · NVD
└──────────────┘
```
Every security review **must** consult live sources and stamp the date. A review with no source and no date is expired on arrival.
## Skills used, and their owners
Workflows load these skills by context. The three pillars of the security review come from primary security sources (OWASP, OSV.dev, UnitOne SecuritySkills), not from a model's memory.
### 🛡️ Security review: the three pillars
_Vendored under `skills/` — see [`skills/NOTICE.md`](skills/NOTICE.md) for exact origin and license._
| Skill | What it does | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| [`safedeps`](https://github.com/Jeneidi/safedeps) | Queries OSV.dev in real time; returns CVE + severity + fixed version for a `package@version`. Covers the gap a frozen model can't. | [Jeneidi](https://github.com/Jeneidi) |
| [`sca-audit`](https://github.com/OWASP/secure-agent-playbook) | Supply-chain audit of dependencies with reachability analysis and CWE mapping. | [OWASP](https://github.com/OWASP) |
| [`code-review-security`](https://github.com/OWASP/secure-agent-playbook) | Systematic security code review mapped to OWASP Top 10 + ASVS. | [OWASP](https://github.com/OWASP) |
### 🛡️ Security review: supporting skills
_Also vendored under `skills/`._
| Skill | What it does | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| [`secrets-scan`](https://github.com/OWASP/secure-agent-playbook) | Finds hardcoded credentials / API keys in code and git history. | [OWASP](https://github.com/OWASP) |
| [`api-security-review`](https://github.com/OWASP/secure-agent-playbook) | API review against OWASP API Security Top 10. | [OWASP](https://github.com/OWASP) |
| [`web-security-review`](https://github.com/OWASP/secure-agent-playbook) | Web app review against OWASP Top 10. | [OWASP](https://github.com/OWASP) |
| [`cve-triage`](https://github.com/UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills) | Prioritizes CVEs using CVSS 4.0 / EPSS / CISA KEV. | [UnitOneAI](https://github.com/UnitOneAI) |
| [`patch-prioritization`](https://github.com/UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills) | Decides remediation order. | [UnitOneAI](https://github.com/UnitOneAI) |
| [`dependency-scanning`](https://github.com/UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills) | Dependency tree scanning. | [UnitOneAI](https://github.com/UnitOneAI) |
| [`hermaguard`](https://github.com/Sahil-SS9/hermaguard) | Adversarial review: static pre-scan + 3 specialist agents (edge cases, attack, blast radius). | [Sahil-SS9](https://github.com/Sahil-SS9) |
### 🎨 Frontend / UI
| Skill | What it does | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| [`frontend-design`](https://github.com/anthropics/skills) | Intentional visual direction, typography, avoiding "generic AI" output. | [Anthropic](https://github.com/anthropics) |
| [`web-design`](https://github.com/KAOPU-XiaoPu/web-design) | Cohesive web aesthetics. | [KAOPU-XiaoPu](https://github.com/KAOPU-XiaoPu) |
| [`vercel-react-best-practices`](https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-skills) | 40+ React/Next performance rules from Vercel engineering. | [Vercel Labs](https://github.com/vercel-labs) |
| [`vercel-composition-patterns`](https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-skills) | Compound components, clean composition. | [Vercel Labs](https://github.com/vercel-labs) |
| [`animate`](https://github.com/emilkowalski/skill) | Purpose-driven motion. | [emilkowalski](https://github.com/emilkowalski) |
| [`impeccable`](https://github.com/pbakaus/impeccable) | The missing design vocabulary for agents: 23 commands (craft, shape, audit, polish, animate, live) and 59 deterministic anti-slop rules. The most-used frontend design skill (230k+ installs). | [pbakaus](https://github.com/pbakaus) |
| [`anti-ai-slop`](https://github.com/evandrodevbr/dev-workflows) | Detects "generated-by-AI" visual patterns (auto-loaded, local). | community skill |
| [`avoid-ai-writing`](https://github.com/conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing) | Removes AI-isms from microcopy, labels and docs. | [conorbronsdon](https://github.com/conorbronsdon) |
### ⚙️ Backend / API
| Skill | What it does | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| [`secure-coding`](https://github.com/securityreviewai/secure-coding-skill) | Secure coding patterns covering 15 stacks. | [securityreviewai](https://github.com/securityreviewai) |
| [`bola-detector`](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) | Broken object-level authorization (OWASP API1). | [apisec-inc](https://github.com/apisec-inc) |
| [`auth-rbac-scaffold`](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) | Authentication + RBAC (OWASP API2 / API5). | [apisec-inc](https://github.com/apisec-inc) |
| [`injection-checker`](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) | SQL / ORM / shell / template injection (OWASP API8). | [apisec-inc](https://github.com/apisec-inc) |
| [`openapi-hardener`](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) | Sanitizes OpenAPI / Zod / Pydantic schemas (OWASP API3). | [apisec-inc](https://github.com/apisec-inc) |
| [`api-security-review`](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) | Full OWASP API Top 10 review. | [apisec-inc](https://github.com/apisec-inc) |
| [`security-test-generator`](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) | Generates security test suites. | [apisec-inc](https://github.com/apisec-inc) |
### 🏗️ Architecture
| Skill | What it does | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| [`system-design`](https://github.com/Kotivskyi/architecture-governance-skills) | HelloInterview system-design framework. | [Kotivskyi](https://github.com/Kotivskyi) |
| [`c4-architecture`](https://github.com/Kotivskyi/architecture-governance-skills) | C4 diagrams (Mermaid / Structurizr). | [Kotivskyi](https://github.com/Kotivskyi) |
| [`isaqb-architecture-governance`](https://github.com/Kotivskyi/architecture-governance-skills) | arc42 + ADRs. | [Kotivskyi](https://github.com/Kotivskyi) |
| [`secure-architecture-governance`](https://github.com/Kotivskyi/architecture-governance-skills) | STRIDE+CIA threat models, security ADRs. | [Kotivskyi](https://github.com/Kotivskyi) |
> 📖 Full install instructions for every skill live in [docs/SKILLS.md](docs/SKILLS.md).
## Quick start
```bash ```bash
# 1. Copy workflows into your agent's skills directory # 1. Copy the workflows into your agent's skills directory
# Hermes Agent:
# Hermes Agent
cp workflows/*.md ~/.hermes/skills/software-development/ cp workflows/*.md ~/.hermes/skills/software-development/
# Claude Code: each skill needs its own directory (won't load a loose .md) # Claude Code: each skill needs its own directory (a loose .md is not loaded)
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
for f in workflows/*.md; do for f in workflows/*.md; do
name=$(basename "$f" .md) name=$(basename "$f" .md)
@@ -145,102 +66,154 @@ for f in workflows/*.md; do
cp "$f" "$HOME/.claude/skills/$name/SKILL.md" cp "$f" "$HOME/.claude/skills/$name/SKILL.md"
done done
# 2. (Optional, for security review) the supporting skills are already # 2. Security review: the supporting skills are already vendored in skills/.
# vendored in skills/ -- no external clone needed, just copy (Hermes; for # Hermes:
# Claude Code use the same loop as step 1, swapping "workflows" for "skills"):
cp -r skills/* ~/.hermes/skills/ cp -r skills/* ~/.hermes/skills/
# Claude Code: copy each skills/<name>/ directory to ~/.claude/skills/<name>/
# (the SKILL.md must sit inside its own directory, as in step 1).
# 3. Use it # 3. Use it
# "review this PR for security" -> wf-security-review loads # "review this PR for security" -> wf-security-review loads
# "build a new page" -> wf-frontend loads # "build a new page" -> wf-frontend loads
``` ```
The remaining skills install through `npx skills` (agentskills.io format), for example:
```bash
npx skills add anthropics/skills --skill frontend-design
npx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills --skill vercel-react-best-practices
npx skills add conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing
npx skills add https://github.com/pbakaus/impeccable --skill impeccable
```
> [!WARNING]
> **Install layout matters.** Claude Code ignores a loose `.md`; it needs
> `<skill>/SKILL.md`. The QA harness has the same requirement: it reads
> `~/.hermes/skills/software-development/<workflow>/SKILL.md`, so the flat `cp`
> used for Hermes above is not enough to run it (see [the harness](#the-qa-harness)).
## How it works
The security workflow is built on one fact: a model's knowledge of CVEs stops at
its training date, so "no vulnerabilities" from memory is a guess.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
A["Code / diff"] --> B["1 SCOPE"]
B --> C["2 HUNT<br/>known CVEs"]
C --> D["3 CONSULT<br/>OSV.dev, GitHub Advisory, NVD"]
D --> E["4 CODE REVIEW<br/>OWASP Top 10 + ASVS"]
E --> F["5 REPORT + GATE<br/>sources and date stamped"]
```
A review with no source and no date is expired on arrival.
### Skills the workflows load
<details>
<summary>Vendored in <code>skills/</code> (security review)</summary>
Exact origin, commit and license of each copy are in [`skills/NOTICE.md`](skills/NOTICE.md).
The copies are 1:1 with the origin; CC-BY-4.0 requires attribution, kept in that file.
| Skill | What it does | Origin | License |
|---|---|---|---|
| `safedeps` | Queries OSV.dev live: CVE, severity and fixed version for a `package@version` (script `check_deps.py`) | [Jeneidi/safedeps](https://github.com/Jeneidi/safedeps) | MIT |
| `sca-audit` | Dependency supply-chain audit with reachability analysis and CWE mapping | [OWASP/secure-agent-playbook](https://github.com/OWASP/secure-agent-playbook) | CC-BY-4.0 |
| `code-review-security` | Systematic security code review mapped to OWASP Top 10 + ASVS | OWASP/secure-agent-playbook | CC-BY-4.0 |
| `secrets-scan` | Hardcoded credentials and API keys in code and git history | OWASP/secure-agent-playbook | CC-BY-4.0 |
| `api-security-review` | API review against OWASP API Security Top 10 | OWASP/secure-agent-playbook | CC-BY-4.0 |
| `web-security-review` | Web app review against OWASP Top 10 | OWASP/secure-agent-playbook | CC-BY-4.0 |
| `cve-triage` | Prioritizes CVEs with CVSS 4.0, EPSS and CISA KEV | [UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills](https://github.com/UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills) | MIT |
| `patch-prioritization` | Decides remediation order | UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills | MIT |
| `dependency-scanning` | Dependency tree scanning | UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills | MIT |
| `hermaguard` | Adversarial review: static pre-scan plus 3 specialist agents (edge cases, attack, blast radius) | [Sahil-SS9/hermaguard](https://github.com/Sahil-SS9/hermaguard) | MIT |
</details>
<details>
<summary>Not vendored (install separately)</summary>
Full inventory and install steps: [`docs/SKILLS.md`](docs/SKILLS.md).
| Workflow | Skill | Origin |
|---|---|---|
| Frontend | `frontend-design` | [anthropics/skills](https://github.com/anthropics/skills) |
| Frontend | `web-design` | [KAOPU-XiaoPu/web-design](https://github.com/KAOPU-XiaoPu/web-design) |
| Frontend | `vercel-react-best-practices`, `vercel-composition-patterns` | [vercel-labs/agent-skills](https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-skills) |
| Frontend | `animate` | [emilkowalski/skill](https://github.com/emilkowalski/skill) |
| Frontend | `impeccable` | [pbakaus/impeccable](https://github.com/pbakaus/impeccable) |
| Frontend | `avoid-ai-writing` | [conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing](https://github.com/conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing) |
| Frontend | `anti-ai-slop` | local skill, not published here |
| Backend | `secure-coding` | [securityreviewai/secure-coding-skill](https://github.com/securityreviewai/secure-coding-skill) |
| Backend | `bola-detector`, `auth-rbac-scaffold`, `injection-checker`, `openapi-hardener`, `api-security-review`, `security-test-generator` | [apisec-inc/apisec-skills](https://github.com/apisec-inc/apisec-skills) |
| Architecture | `system-design`, `c4-architecture`, `isaqb-architecture-governance`, `secure-architecture-governance` | [Kotivskyi/architecture-governance-skills](https://github.com/Kotivskyi/architecture-governance-skills) |
| README | `readme-crafter` | [linhai0872/readme-crafter-skill](https://github.com/linhai0872/readme-crafter-skill) |
| README | `good-readme` | [adewale/good-readme](https://github.com/adewale/good-readme) |
| README | `curating-readme` | [liang-senbei/curating-readme](https://github.com/liang-senbei/curating-readme) |
</details>
## The QA harness ## The QA harness
The `qa/` directory keeps the workflows themselves honest: The [`qa/`](qa) directory keeps the workflows honest:
```bash ```bash
cd qa cd qa
python3 wf_quality_harness.py # score each workflow on 30+ criteria python3 wf_quality_harness.py # score each workflow on 30+ criteria
python3 test_quality.py # gates: no regression, valid skills, phases verified python3 test_quality.py # gates: no regression, referenced skills exist, every phase verified
python3 test_tests.py # meta-tests: corrupt the harness, prove it detects the corruption python3 test_tests.py # meta-tests: corrupt harness/workflows, confirm the score drops
``` ```
The meta-tests are the interesting part. They deliberately break the harness and the workflows, then confirm the score *drops*. If the score didn't move, the detector would be useless. These tests stay green as a contract. The harness scores `wf-frontend`, `wf-backend`, `wf-architecture` and
`wf-security-review` (not `wf-readme`) by static criteria extracted from each
`SKILL.md`: structure, numbered steps per phase, verification verbs, referenced
skills that exist, and AI-isms density. The meta-tests are the useful part:
they deliberately break the harness and a workflow, then confirm the score
changes. If it did not, the detector would be useless.
## Quality tests and measured gains <details>
<summary>Measured scores</summary>
These are real numbers from the harness runs, stored in `qa/snapshots/`. The baseline column is the state before the refinement work; the final column is the result after it. Final scores per workflow come from [`qa/snapshots/baseline-final.json`](qa/snapshots/baseline-final.json).
The "before" values come from earlier harness runs; only the final snapshot is
versioned.
### Workflow quality score (same harness, before → after) | Workflow | Before | Final | Gain |
| Workflow | Baseline | Final | Gain |
|---|---|---|---| |---|---|---|---|
| wf-frontend | 201.0 | 385.5 | +92% | | `wf-frontend` | 201.0 | 385.5 | +92% |
| wf-backend | 215.0 | 424.0 | +97% | | `wf-backend` | 215.0 | 424.0 | +97% |
| wf-architecture | 199.9 | 413.7 | +107% | | `wf-architecture` | 199.9 | 413.7 | +107% |
| wf-security-review | 332.0 | 390.0 | +17% | | `wf-security-review` | 332.0 | 390.0 | +17% |
| **Total** | **615.9** | **1223.2** | **+98.6%** | | Sum of the first three | 615.9 | 1223.2 | +98.6% |
| Sum of the four | 947.9 | 1613.2 | +70.2% |
That is almost exactly double the quality of the workflows, measured with the same ruler. The ruler also got stricter over time (13 criteria at first, 30+ later), so the
before/after comparison uses the final ruler on both sides. The numeric "2x"
target was not forced: inflating the score to hit it would be gaming the metric.
The ruler itself also grew stricter over the project (13 → 30+ criteria: verification per phase, real commands, anti-patterns, acceptance criteria, artifacts, flow). That is why the early snapshots show lower totals: `base-364` (13 criteria) → `baseline-v2` (536.7) → `baseline-v3` (675.0) → `baseline-v4` (884.6) → `baseline-final` (1613.2 with four workflows). The fair before/after comparison above uses the final ruler for both sides. </details>
### Gates (regression checks): all green ## Known limits
| Gate | What it checks | Status | - The harness reads installed copies from `~/.hermes/skills/software-development/<name>/SKILL.md`
|---|---|---| (hardcoded `SKILLS_DIR`), not the files in `workflows/`. Install in the directory
| G1 | Score did not drop below baseline | ✅ | layout first, or it reports `SKILL.md não encontrado`.
| G4 | Every referenced skill exists | ✅ 4/4 workflows | - Two different skills share the name `api-security-review`: the vendored OWASP one
| G5 | Every phase has ≥3 verification verbs | ✅ 4/4 workflows | (`skills/`) and the apisec-inc one used by the backend workflow. Installing both
| Meta-tests | Corrupt harness/workflows → score drops (proves detector works) | ✅ | into the same directory makes one overwrite the other.
- There is no root CI workflow. `skills/hermaguard/.github/workflows/ci.yml` belongs
to the vendored hermaguard and does not run from this repository.
- The `wf-readme` workflow is not covered by the harness.
### What the refinement added ## Contributing
Every workflow gained the same batch of real improvements: Open an issue first, then a PR. The rules are the ones the workflows enforce:
- **Verification steps** with actual commands (`curl`, `grep`, `python3`, `git`, `npm`, `pytest`) instead of prose. claims trace back to repo facts, every phase has a verification step, and docs avoid
- **Per-phase acceptance checklists** (markable `[ ]` gates). AI-isms. Run the three `qa/` commands above before a PR; if you change scoring, update
- **Anti-pattern blocks** per phase (what not to do, and why). `qa/snapshots/baseline-final.json`. Details in [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md).
- **Executable-command sections** and **worked examples per phase**.
- **Checkpoints** that pause for user approval between phases.
The security workflow gained a hard rule: *never claim "no CVE" without querying OSV.dev / GitHub Advisory*. A model's knowledge stops at its training cutoff; the live sources don't.
### Context on the "double" target
The harness has a physical ceiling (sum of all criterion caps). The numeric "2× of baseline" target would need a ruler with more resolution to be expressible, so inflating the score to hit it would be gaming the metric. What shipped is the honest version: real quality ~doubled on the same ruler (+98.6%), with meta-tests proving the ruler detects regressions.
## Repository layout
```
dev-workflows/
├── README.md # this file
├── README.pt-BR.md # Portuguese version
├── workflows/ # the four SKILL.md workflows
│ ├── wf-frontend.md
│ ├── wf-backend.md
│ ├── wf-architecture.md
│ └── wf-security-review.md
├── docs/
│ └── SKILLS.md # full skill inventory + install steps
├── CONTRIBUTING.md # what to improve, local checks, PR process
└── qa/ # quality harness, gates, meta-tests
├── wf_quality_harness.py
├── test_quality.py
├── test_tests.py
└── snapshots/
```
## License ## License
[MIT](LICENSE) © 2026 [Evandro Fonseca Junior](https://github.com/evandrodevbr) [MIT](LICENSE), (c) 2026 Evandro Fonseca Junior. Vendored skills keep their own
licenses ([`skills/NOTICE.md`](skills/NOTICE.md)).
---
<div align="center">
⭐ If this saves you from one "works on my machine" merge, star it.
</div>