feat(deploy): production deployment setup and fixes

- Debian-based api image (bookworm-slim), docker/debian mirrors, prisma binaryTargets for openssl 3.0 - nginx: admin SPA under /admin, TLS via acme.sh (ZeroSSL) + auto-renewal cron, http->https redirect - prisma: add origin_goods.delisted migration, sync missing schema (good_image/tag_font_color/good_tags), fix users.createdAt Timestamptz - api: CORS wildcard reflection, helmet CORP cross-origin, price backfill in persistProductDetail, categoryIcon ancestor fallback, mediaByColor per-color gallery in public goods detail - admin: /admin base path (vite + router) - import-data.mjs: udt_name casting, serial sequence advance fix
2026-08-26 14:23:09 +08:00
parent be0b90e68f
commit 6c61a4e871
982 changed files with 74156 additions and 179393 deletions
@@ -1,49 +1,49 @@
-# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template
-
-Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.
-
-**Purpose:** Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.
-
-**Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/
-
-```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
-  description: "Review spec document"
-  prompt: |
-    You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.
-
-    **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
-
-    ## What to Check
-
-    | Category | What to Look For |
-    |----------|------------------|
-    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
-    | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
-    | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
-    | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
-    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
-
-    ## Calibration
-
-    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
-    A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
-    interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
-    stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.
-
-    Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.
-
-    ## Output Format
-
-    ## Spec Review
-
-    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
-
-    **Issues (if any):**
-    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]
-
-    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
-    - [suggestions for improvement]
-```
-
-**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations
+# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.
+
+**Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review spec document"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.
+
+    **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    | Category | What to Look For |
+    |----------|------------------|
+    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
+    | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
+    | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
+    | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
+    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
+    A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
+    interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
+    stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.
+
+    Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ## Spec Review
+
+    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
+
+    **Issues (if any):**
+    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]
+
+    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
+    - [suggestions for improvement]
+```
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations