Add User Agent string for requests coming from git-sync, so that it has git-sync + version. Ideally it would also have http version 1.1 vs 2.0, but the latter is less important

Add User Agent string for requests coming from git-sync, so that it has git-sync + version. Ideally it would also have http version 1.1 vs 2.0, but the latter is less important
Base directory for this skill: /home/coder/.claude/plugins/cache/claude-plugins-official/superpowers/5.1.0/skills/brainstorming
Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start 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.
<HARD-GATE> Do 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. </HARD-GATE>Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
Every 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.
Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
- Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
- 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.
- Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
- Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
- Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
- Write design doc — save to
docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.mdand commit - Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
- User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
- Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
Process Flow
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.
The Process
Understanding the idea:
- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
- 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.
- 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.
- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
Exploring approaches:
- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
Presenting the design:
- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
Design for isolation and clarity:
- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
- 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.
- 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.
Working in existing codebases:
- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
- 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.
- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
After the Design
Documentation:
- Write the validated design (spec) to
docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md- (User preferences for spec location override this default)
- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
- Commit the design document to git
Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
- Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
- Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
- Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
- Ambiguity check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.
Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.
User Review Gate: After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
"Spec written and committed to
<path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."
Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
Implementation:
- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
Key Principles
- One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
- Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
- YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
- Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
- Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
- Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
Visual Companion
A 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.
Offering the companion: When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
"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)"
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.
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?
- Use the browser for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
- Use the terminal for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
A 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.
If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md
Add User Agent string for requests coming from git-sync, so that it has git-sync + version. Ideally it would also have http version 1.1 vs 2.0, but the latter is less important. Note that this can also be set for go-git commands, let's also do that.
Quick context: the User-Agent currently sent everywhere is capability.DefaultAgent() → "go-git/6.x". Three places set it:
internal/gitproto/smarthttp.go:297(info-refs GET)internal/gitproto/smarthttp.go:393(RPC POST)internal/strategy/bootstrap/bootstrap.go:1341(GitHub repo metadata)
Plus one place that sets the wire-protocol agent= capability: internal/gitproto/capability.go:69.
The CLI has version info in cmd/git-sync/internal/versioninfo/ (Version, Commit, Date), but it's CLI-private — the library has no notion of its own version.
A few design decisions to lock in before I sketch the change:
Q1 — Where does the library get its version?
The library is consumed as an SDK too (the gitsync.Client), not just through the CLI. So it needs a version visible from the library side.
Q2 — Final User-Agent format. Options:
| Option | Value sent | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| A | git-sync/0.5.0 go-git/6.x | Keeps go-git attribution (servers/logs often expect/recognize it); identifies us specifically. Recommended. |
| B | git-sync/0.5.0 | Cleanest; loses go-git transport attribution. |
| C | git-sync/0.5.0 (go-git/6.x) | Same as A but parenthesized comment form. |
Q3 — Library API. Add Options.UserAgent string so SDK callers can override (e.g., embedders identifying themselves: "acme-app/1.2 git-sync/0.5.0"). Default is the built-in git-sync/<version> go-git/6.x. The CLI gets it for free from the default.
Q4 — Scope for now. Apply to all three HTTP sites + the protocol agent= capability. Skip the HTTP/1.1 vs HTTP/2 marker for this round (would need a transport-level hook to read resp.Proto).
Does that shape look right? Specifically: which User-Agent format (A/B/C) do you want, and do you want Options.UserAgent as an override knob, or just a built-in non-configurable string?
Confirmed direction. Here is the concrete shape:
New package internal/useragent:
CLI wiring: in cmd/git-sync (init or root), set useragent.Version = versioninfo.Version so the CLI's --version and the User-Agent stay aligned. SDK consumers get "git-sync/dev" unless they override useragent.Version themselves (lightweight, no Options field).
Call-site changes (5 lines total):
| File | Line | Before | After |
|---|---|---|---|
internal/gitproto/smarthttp.go | 297 | capability.DefaultAgent() | useragent.GoGit() |
internal/gitproto/smarthttp.go | 393 | capability.DefaultAgent() | useragent.GoGit() |
internal/gitproto/capability.go | 69 | "agent="+capability.DefaultAgent() | "agent="+useragent.GoGit() |
internal/strategy/bootstrap/bootstrap.go | 1341 | capability.DefaultAgent() | useragent.Plain() |
Tests: internal/gitproto/capability_test.go:171-172 references capability.DefaultAgent() for the expected agent line — update to useragent.GoGit(). Add a small test in internal/useragent for both helpers.
Skip: HTTP/1.1 vs 2.0 marker (per your "less important").
Two notes for your call:
- Override knob: I'm not adding
Options.UserAgent— SDK callers who really want to override can write touseragent.Version(or we can revisit if a real consumer asks). OK? - Spec doc: this is small enough I'd rather just implement. Want me to skip the formal
docs/superpowers/specs/...-design.mdwrite-up?
If both yes, I'll proceed.
Done. Summary of the change:
New package internal/useragent (useragent.go + useragent_test.go):
Versionvar (default"dev", ldflags-overridable, also writable by SDK consumers).GoGit()→"git-sync/<version> go-git/<go-git-version>"for git wire-protocol traffic.Plain()→"git-sync/<version>"for non-git HTTP.
Call sites updated:
internal/gitproto/smarthttp.go:297, 393— info-refs and RPC HTTP requests now senduseragent.GoGit().internal/gitproto/capability.go:69— protocol v2agent=capability now sendsuseragent.GoGit().internal/strategy/bootstrap/bootstrap.go:1341— GitHub repo-metadata API call sendsuseragent.Plain().
CLI wiring: cmd/git-sync/main.go sets useragent.Version = versioninfo.Version at startup, so the CLI's --version, the HTTP User-Agent, and the wire-protocol agent capability all stay aligned with the built version.
go vet, golangci-lint, and the full test suite pass (with GIT_CONFIG_GLOBAL=/dev/null to bypass the unrelated local GPG-signing config that's making other tests' git fixtures fail).
Want me to stage and commit these?
Before I run git commit (so your GPG agent has time to unlock), here is the draft:
Files:
cmd/git-sync/main.gointernal/gitproto/capability.gointernal/gitproto/capability_test.gointernal/gitproto/smarthttp.gointernal/strategy/bootstrap/bootstrap.gointernal/useragent/useragent.go(new)internal/useragent/useragent_test.go(new)
Draft commit message:
Ack to commit?