diff --git a/.gemini-workspace-history/active-context.md b/.gemini-workspace-history/active-context.md index 777b7d8d..a8c114ba 100644 --- a/.gemini-workspace-history/active-context.md +++ b/.gemini-workspace-history/active-context.md @@ -1,164 +1,106 @@ -## Full Previous Session Transcript (from session-2026-05-01-21-51.json.gz) +## Full Previous Session Transcript (from session-2026-05-01-23-27.json.gz) -{"sessionId":"1aba3099-27ee-4e6f-b8c8-47b8d0f49c2b","projectHash":"7f18566d1c908d23dd7efd873d3cb46f94e7b050573aabcd900d1036d7568a6b","startTime":"2026-05-01T14:11:10.713Z","lastUpdated":"2026-05-01T14:11:10.713Z","kind":"main"} -{"id":"6a5c3368-eefb-4a8b-a6eb-8ffd1140c215","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:11.007Z","type":"info","content":"No summary found for the last session. Please use the 'workspace-summarizer' skill to generate one if needed."} -{"$set":{"lastUpdated":"2026-05-01T14:11:11.008Z"}} -{"id":"0d713b10-9793-481e-b918-87fc382f1cc2","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:11.174Z","type":"info","content":"You have 1 extension with an update available. Run \"/extensions update caveman\"."} -{"$set":{"lastUpdated":"2026-05-01T14:11:11.175Z"}} -{"id":"48e7cf70-5b0e-4915-b444-c737b1cfe44b","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:32.717Z","type":"user","content":[{"text":"fuck, sao logic của lobby lại tùm lum hết rồi. khi 1 người nhấn tạo phòng thì họ sẽ vào phòng đó đợi, nó có thể nhấn ready hoặc not ready, chỉ chủ phòng mới có thể start game. còn phía người khác join vào phòng thì chỉ họ chỉ có thể nhấn ready or not thôi ko thể start game."}]} -{"$set":{"lastUpdated":"2026-05-01T14:11:32.718Z"}} -{"id":"ed336888-e6a9-445a-a020-927a80995564","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:37.186Z","type":"gemini","content":"","thoughts":[{"subject":"Re-Evaluating Lobby Flow","description":"I've been meticulously revisiting the lobby flow for the Unity project, and it's a bit of a tangle. Currently, my focus is locked on the host's actions: creating a room, toggling ready states, and initiating the game. I'm aiming for a streamlined experience, and I'm looking at optimizing the host's actions, making them intuitive and responsive.","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:36.272Z"}],"tokens":{"input":28970,"output":169,"cached":0,"thoughts":372,"tool":0,"total":29511},"model":"gemini-3-flash-preview"} -{"$set":{"lastUpdated":"2026-05-01T14:11:37.186Z"}} -{"id":"ed336888-e6a9-445a-a020-927a80995564","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:37.186Z","type":"gemini","content":"","thoughts":[{"subject":"Re-Evaluating Lobby Flow","description":"I've been meticulously revisiting the lobby flow for the Unity project, and it's a bit of a tangle. Currently, my focus is locked on the host's actions: creating a room, toggling ready states, and initiating the game. I'm aiming for a streamlined experience, and I'm looking at optimizing the host's actions, making them intuitive and responsive.","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:11:36.272Z"}],"tokens":{"input":28970,"output":169,"cached":0,"thoughts":372,"tool":0,"total":29511},"model":"gemini-3-flash-preview","toolCalls":[{"id":"update_topic_1777644697027_3","name":"update_topic","args":{"title":"Fixing Lobby Logic","strategic_intent":"Investigate and fix Lobby host/client logic in LobbyController.cs.","summary":"User reports messy lobby logic. Host should be the only one able to start game. Clients only toggle ready state. I will investigate current implementation in Assets/Scripts/UI/LobbyController.cs."},"result":[{"functionResponse":{"id":"update_topic_1777644697027_3","name":"update_topic","response":{"output":"Current topic: \"Fixing Lobby Logic\"\nTopic summary: User reports messy lobby logic. Host should be the only one able to start game. Clients only toggle ready state. I will investigate current implementation in Assets/Scripts/UI/LobbyController.cs.\n\nStrategic Intent: Investigate and fix Lobby host/client logic in LobbyController.cs."}}}],"status":"success","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:12:26.075Z","resultDisplay":"## 📂 Topic: **Fixing Lobby Logic**\n\n**Summary:**\nUser reports messy lobby logic. Host should be the only one able to start game. Clients only toggle ready state. I will investigate current implementation in Assets/Scripts/UI/LobbyController.cs.\n\n> [!STRATEGY]\n> **Intent:** Investigate and fix Lobby host/client logic in LobbyController.cs.","description":"Update topic to: \"Fixing Lobby Logic\"","displayName":"Update Topic Context","renderOutputAsMarkdown":true},{"id":"activate_skill_1777644696379_0","name":"activate_skill","args":{"name":"caveman"},"result":[{"functionResponse":{"id":"activate_skill_1777644696379_0","name":"activate_skill","response":{"error":"[Operation Cancelled] Reason: User denied execution."}}}],"status":"cancelled","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:12:26.075Z","description":"\"caveman\": Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by speaking like caveman while keeping full technical accuracy. Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra, wenyan-lite, wenyan-full, wenyan-ultra. Use when user says \"caveman mode\", \"talk like caveman\", \"use caveman\", \"less tokens\", \"be brief\", or invokes /caveman. Also auto-triggers when token efficiency is requested.","displayName":"Activate Skill","renderOutputAsMarkdown":true},{"id":"activate_skill_1777644696499_1","name":"activate_skill","args":{"name":"systematic-debugging"},"result":[{"functionResponse":{"id":"activate_skill_1777644696499_1","name":"activate_skill","response":{"output":"\n \n # Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n - They often contain the exact solution\n - Read stack traces completely\n - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n - Can you trigger it reliably?\n - What are the exact steps?\n - Does it happen every time?\n - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n - What changed that could cause this?\n - Git diff, recent commits\n - New dependencies, config changes\n - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**\n\n **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n ```\n For EACH component boundary:\n - Log what data enters component\n - Log what data exits component\n - Verify environment/config propagation\n - Check state at each layer\n\n Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n THEN investigate that specific component\n ```\n\n **Example (multi-layer system):**\n ```bash\n # Layer 1: Workflow\n echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n # Layer 2: Build script\n echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n # Layer 3: Signing script\n echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n security list-keychains\n security find-identity -v\n\n # Layer 4: Actual signing\n codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n ```\n\n **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n **Quick version:**\n - Where does bad value originate?\n - What called this with bad value?\n - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n - Don't skim - read every line\n - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n - What's different between working and broken?\n - List every difference, however small\n - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n - What other components does this need?\n - What settings, config, environment?\n - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n - Write it down\n - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n - One variable at a time\n - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4\n - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n - DON'T add more fixes on top\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n - Don't pretend to know\n - Ask for help\n - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n - Simplest possible reproduction\n - Automated test if possible\n - One-off test script if no framework\n - MUST have before fixing\n - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n - Address the root cause identified\n - ONE change at a time\n - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n - Test passes now?\n - No other tests broken?\n - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n - STOP\n - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place\n - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n \n\n \n Showing up to 200 items (files + folders).\n\nC:\\Users\\scove\\.gemini\\extensions\\superpowers\\skills\\systematic-debugging\\\n├───condition-based-waiting-example.ts\n├───condition-based-waiting.md\n├───CREATION-LOG.md\n├───defense-in-depth.md\n├───find-polluter.sh\n├───root-cause-tracing.md\n├───SKILL.md\n├───test-academic.md\n├───test-pressure-1.md\n├───test-pressure-2.md\n└───test-pressure-3.md\n \n"}}}],"status":"success","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:12:26.075Z","resultDisplay":"Skill **systematic-debugging** activated. Resources loaded from `C:\\Users\\scove\\.gemini\\extensions\\superpowers\\skills\\systematic-debugging`:\n\nShowing up to 200 items (files + folders).\n\nC:\\Users\\scove\\.gemini\\extensions\\superpowers\\skills\\systematic-debugging\\\n├───condition-based-waiting-example.ts\n├───condition-based-waiting.md\n├───CREATION-LOG.md\n├───defense-in-depth.md\n├───find-polluter.sh\n├───root-cause-tracing.md\n├───SKILL.md\n├───test-academic.md\n├───test-pressure-1.md\n├───test-pressure-2.md\n└───test-pressure-3.md","description":"\"systematic-debugging\": Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","displayName":"Activate Skill","renderOutputAsMarkdown":true},{"id":"activate_skill_1777644696892_2","name":"activate_skill","args":{"name":"brainstorming"},"result":[{"functionResponse":{"id":"activate_skill_1777644696892_2","name":"activate_skill","response":{"output":"\n \n # Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs\n\nHelp turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.\n\nStart by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.\n\n\nDo NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.\n\n\n## Anti-Pattern: \"This Is Too Simple To Need A Design\"\n\nEvery project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. \"Simple\" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.\n\n## Checklist\n\nYou MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:\n\n1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits\n2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.\n3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria\n4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation\n5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section\n6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md` and commit\n7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)\n8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding\n9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan\n\n## Process Flow\n\n```dot\ndigraph brainstorming {\n \"Explore project context\" [shape=box];\n \"Visual questions ahead?\" [shape=diamond];\n \"Offer Visual Companion\\n(own message, no other content)\" [shape=box];\n \"Ask clarifying questions\" [shape=box];\n \"Propose 2-3 approaches\" [shape=box];\n \"Present design sections\" [shape=box];\n \"User approves design?\" [shape=diamond];\n \"Write design doc\" [shape=box];\n \"Spec self-review\\n(fix inline)\" [shape=box];\n \"User reviews spec?\" [shape=diamond];\n \"Invoke writing-plans skill\" [shape=doublecircle];\n\n \"Explore project context\" -> \"Visual questions ahead?\";\n \"Visual questions ahead?\" -> \"Offer Visual Companion\\n(own message, no other content)\" [label=\"yes\"];\n \"Visual questions ahead?\" -> \"Ask clarifying questions\" [label=\"no\"];\n \"Offer Visual Companion\\n(own message, no other content)\" -> \"Ask clarifying questions\";\n \"Ask clarifying questions\" -> \"Propose 2-3 approaches\";\n \"Propose 2-3 approaches\" -> \"Present design sections\";\n \"Present design sections\" -> \"User approves design?\";\n \"User approves design?\" -> \"Present design sections\" [label=\"no, revise\"];\n \"User approves design?\" -> \"Write design doc\" [label=\"yes\"];\n \"Write design doc\" -> \"Spec self-review\\n(fix inline)\";\n \"Spec self-review\\n(fix inline)\" -> \"User reviews spec?\";\n \"User reviews spec?\" -> \"Write design doc\" [label=\"changes requested\"];\n \"User reviews spec?\" -> \"Invoke writing-plans skill\" [label=\"approved\"];\n}\n```\n\n**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.\n\n## The Process\n\n**Understanding the idea:**\n\n- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)\n- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., \"build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics\"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.\n- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.\n- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea\n- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too\n- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions\n- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria\n\n**Exploring approaches:**\n\n- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs\n- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning\n- Lead with your recommended option and explain why\n\n**Presenting the design:**\n\n- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design\n- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced\n- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far\n- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing\n- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense\n\n**Design for isolation and clarity:**\n\n- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently\n- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?\n- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.\n- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.\n\n**Working in existing codebases:**\n\n- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.\n- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.\n- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.\n\n## After the Design\n\n**Documentation:**\n\n- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md`\n - (User preferences for spec location override this default)\n- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available\n- Commit the design document to git\n\n**Spec Self-Review:**\nAfter writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:\n\n1. **Placeholder scan:** Any \"TBD\", \"TODO\", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.\n2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?\n3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?\n4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.\n\nFix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.\n\n**User Review Gate:**\nAfter the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:\n\n> \"Spec written and committed to ``. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan.\"\n\nWait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.\n\n**Implementation:**\n\n- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan\n- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.\n\n## Key Principles\n\n- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions\n- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible\n- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs\n- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling\n- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on\n- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense\n\n## Visual Companion\n\nA browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.\n\n**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:\n> \"Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)\"\n\n**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.\n\n**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?**\n\n- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs\n- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions\n\nA question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. \"What does personality mean in this context?\" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. \"Which wizard layout works better?\" is a visual question — use the browser.\n\nIf they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:\n`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md`\n \n\n \n Showing up to 200 items (files + folders).\n\nC:\\Users\\scove\\.gemini\\extensions\\superpowers\\skills\\brainstorming\\\n├───SKILL.md\n├───spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md\n├───visual-companion.md\n└───scripts\\\n ├───frame-template.html\n ├───helper.js\n ├───server.cjs\n ├───start-server.sh\n └───stop-server.sh\n \n"}}}],"status":"success","timestamp":"2026-05-01T14:12:26.075Z","resultDisplay":"Skill **brainstorming** activated. Resources loaded from `C:\\Users\\scove\\.gemini\\extensions\\superpowers\\skills\\brainstorming`:\n\nShowing up to 200 items (files + folders).\n\nC:\\Users\\scove\\.gemini\\extensions\\superpowers\\skills\\brainstorming\\\n├───SKILL.md\n├───spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md\n├───visual-companion.md\n└───scripts\\\n ├───frame-template.html\n ├───helper.js\n ├───server.cjs\n ├───start-server.sh\n └───stop-server.sh","description":"\"brainstorming\": You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.","displayName":"Activate Skill","renderOutputAsMarkdown":true},{"id":"read_file_1777644697041_4","name":"read_file","args":{"file_path":"Assets/Scripts/UI/LobbyController.cs"},"result":[{"functionResponse":{"id":"read_file_1777644697041_4","name":"read_file","response":{"output":"using UnityEngine;\nusing UnityEngine.UIElements;\nusing System.Collections.Generic;\nusing System.Threading.Tasks;\nusing Fusion;\nusing System.Linq;\n\nnamespace Hallucinate.UI\n{\n public class LobbyController : BaseUIController\n {\n private VisualTreeAsset _roomItemTemplate;\n private PlayerDataManager _playerDataManager;\n\n private VisualElement _joinContainer, _createContainer, _loungeContainer, _passOverlay;\n private TextField _roomIDInput, _roomNameInput, _roomPassInput;\n private Toggle _passToggle;\n private Label _createErrorLabel;\n private Button _confirmCreateBtn;\n private ScrollView _roomList;\n private TextField _joinPassInput;\n private Label _joinPassError;\n private SessionInfo _selectedSession;\n private Label _loungeRoomName;\n private Button _readyBtn, _startBtn;\n private Label _hostNameLabel, _hostStatusLabel;\n private VisualElement _hostChatBox;\n private Label _hostChatMessage;\n private Label _guestNameLabel, _guestStatusLabel;\n private VisualElement _guestChatBox;\n private Label _guestChatMessage;\n private TextField _chatInput;\n\n private bool _isBusy = false;\n\n public override void Initialize(VisualElement uxmlRoot, UIManager manager)\n {\n base.Initialize(uxmlRoot, manager);\n _joinContainer = root.Q(\"JoinContainer\");\n _createContainer = root.Q(\"CreateContainer\");\n _loungeContainer = root.Q(\"LoungeContainer\");\n _passOverlay = root.Q(\"PasswordOverlay\");\n _roomIDInput = root.Q(\"RoomIDInput\");\n _roomNameInput = root.Q(\"RoomNameInput\");\n _roomPassInput = root.Q(\"RoomPassInput\");\n _passToggle = root.Q(\"PassToggle\");\n _createErrorLabel = root.Q