Enhance .cursor documentation and workflows
ci/woodpecker/push/01-test Pipeline was successful
ci/woodpecker/push/02-build-push Pipeline was successful

Updated the README.md to reflect new skill commands and improved descriptions for various workflows, including the addition of new skills like /test-spec, /code-review, and /release. Enhanced clarity on session boundaries and flow resolutions in the auto-chaining process.

Removed the implementer agent file as it is no longer needed. Updated coderule and meta-rule documents to enforce stricter testing and implementation standards, ensuring real results are produced rather than simulated ones.

Revised the autodev flow documentation to include a new release step and clarified the retrospective process. Adjusted the testing rules to specify coverage thresholds for critical paths.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
This commit is contained in:
Oleksandr Bezdieniezhnykh
2026-05-21 13:52:34 +03:00
parent 19c0371fd6
commit 7d3ba1c3fd
33 changed files with 1217 additions and 265 deletions
+4 -3
View File
@@ -202,12 +202,12 @@ If invoked in `cycle-update` mode (see "Invocation Modes" above), read and follo
| Missing acceptance_criteria.md, restrictions.md, or input_data/ | **STOP** — specification cannot proceed |
| Missing input_data/expected_results/results_report.md | **STOP** — ask user to provide expected results mapping using the template |
| Ambiguous requirements | ASK user |
| Input data coverage below 75% (Phase 1) | Search internet for supplementary data, ASK user to validate |
| Input data coverage below the canonical threshold (Phase 1) | Search internet for supplementary data, ASK user to validate. See `.cursor/rules/cursor-meta.mdc` Quality Thresholds for the canonical 75% number — do not hardcode a different threshold here. |
| Expected results missing or not quantifiable (Phase 1) | ASK user to provide quantifiable expected results before proceeding |
| Test scenario conflicts with restrictions | ASK user to clarify intent |
| System interfaces unclear (no architecture.md) | ASK user or derive from solution.md |
| Test data or expected result not provided for a test scenario (Phase 3) | WARN user and REMOVE the test |
| Final coverage below 75% after removals (Phase 3) | BLOCK — require user to supply data or accept reduced spec |
| Final coverage below the canonical threshold after removals (Phase 3) | BLOCK — require user to supply data or accept reduced spec (see `cursor-meta.mdc` Quality Thresholds) |
## Common Mistakes
@@ -252,7 +252,8 @@ When the user wants to:
│ │
│ Phase 3: Test Data & Expected Results Validation Gate (HARD GATE) │
│ → phases/03-data-validation-gate.md │
│ [BLOCKING: coverage ≥ 75% required to pass]
│ [BLOCKING: coverage ≥ canonical threshold required to pass —
│ see cursor-meta.mdc Quality Thresholds (75%)] │
│ │
│ Hardware-Dependency Assessment (BLOCKING, pre-Phase-4) │
│ → phases/hardware-assessment.md │
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# Phase 3: Test Data & Expected Results Validation Gate (HARD GATE)
**Role**: Professional Quality Assurance Engineer
**Goal**: Ensure every test scenario produced in Phase 2 has concrete, sufficient test data. Remove tests that lack data. Verify final coverage stays above 75%.
**Goal**: Ensure every test scenario produced in Phase 2 has concrete, sufficient test data. Remove tests that lack data. Verify final coverage stays above the canonical threshold (currently 75% — see `.cursor/rules/cursor-meta.mdc` Quality Thresholds; never hardcode a different number in any phase).
**Constraints**: This phase is MANDATORY and cannot be skipped.
## Step 1 — Build the requirements checklist