This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,10 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: grill-me
|
||||
description: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".
|
||||
description: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the questions one at a time.
|
||||
|
||||
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
|
||||
Run a `/grilling` session.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# ADR Format
|
||||
|
||||
ADRs live in `docs/adr/` and use sequential numbering: `0001-slug.md`, `0002-slug.md`, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Template
|
||||
|
||||
```md
|
||||
# {Short title of the decision}
|
||||
|
||||
{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording *that* a decision was made and *why* — not in filling out sections.
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional sections
|
||||
|
||||
Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`) — useful when decisions are revisited
|
||||
- **Considered Options** — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
|
||||
- **Consequences** — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
|
||||
|
||||
## Numbering
|
||||
|
||||
Scan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to offer an ADR
|
||||
|
||||
All three of these must be true:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
||||
2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
|
||||
3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
||||
|
||||
If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
|
||||
|
||||
### What qualifies
|
||||
|
||||
- **Architectural shape.** "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
|
||||
- **Integration patterns between contexts.** "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
|
||||
- **Technology choices that carry lock-in.** Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library — just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
|
||||
- **Boundary and scope decisions.** "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
|
||||
- **Deliberate deviations from the obvious path.** "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
|
||||
- **Constraints not visible in the code.** "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
|
||||
- **Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious.** If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it — otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.
|
||||
@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# CONTEXT.md Format
|
||||
|
||||
## Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```md
|
||||
# {Context Name}
|
||||
|
||||
{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}
|
||||
|
||||
## Language
|
||||
|
||||
**Order**:
|
||||
{A one or two sentence description of the term}
|
||||
_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction
|
||||
|
||||
**Invoice**:
|
||||
A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.
|
||||
_Avoid_: Bill, payment request
|
||||
|
||||
**Customer**:
|
||||
A person or organization that places orders.
|
||||
_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others under `_Avoid_`.
|
||||
- **Keep definitions tight.** One or two sentences max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
|
||||
- **Only include terms specific to this project's context.** General programming concepts (timeouts, error types, utility patterns) don't belong even if the project uses them extensively. Before adding a term, ask: is this a concept unique to this context, or a general programming concept? Only the former belongs.
|
||||
- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine.
|
||||
|
||||
## Single vs multi-context repos
|
||||
|
||||
**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root.
|
||||
|
||||
**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other:
|
||||
|
||||
```md
|
||||
# Context Map
|
||||
|
||||
## Contexts
|
||||
|
||||
- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders
|
||||
- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments
|
||||
- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationships
|
||||
|
||||
- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking
|
||||
- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices
|
||||
- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money`
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The skill infers which structure applies:
|
||||
|
||||
- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts
|
||||
- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context
|
||||
- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved
|
||||
|
||||
When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.
|
||||
@@ -1,88 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: grill-with-docs
|
||||
description: Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
|
||||
description: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<what-to-do>
|
||||
|
||||
Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
|
||||
|
||||
</what-to-do>
|
||||
|
||||
<supporting-info>
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain awareness
|
||||
|
||||
During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:
|
||||
|
||||
### File structure
|
||||
|
||||
Most repos have a single context:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
/
|
||||
├── CONTEXT.md
|
||||
├── docs/
|
||||
│ └── adr/
|
||||
│ ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
|
||||
│ └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
|
||||
└── src/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
/
|
||||
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
|
||||
├── docs/
|
||||
│ └── adr/ ← system-wide decisions
|
||||
├── src/
|
||||
│ ├── ordering/
|
||||
│ │ ├── CONTEXT.md
|
||||
│ │ └── docs/adr/ ← context-specific decisions
|
||||
│ └── billing/
|
||||
│ ├── CONTEXT.md
|
||||
│ └── docs/adr/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## During the session
|
||||
|
||||
### Challenge against the glossary
|
||||
|
||||
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Sharpen fuzzy language
|
||||
|
||||
When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
|
||||
|
||||
### Discuss concrete scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-reference with code
|
||||
|
||||
When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Update CONTEXT.md inline
|
||||
|
||||
When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
|
||||
`CONTEXT.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.
|
||||
|
||||
### Offer ADRs sparingly
|
||||
|
||||
Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
||||
2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
|
||||
3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
||||
|
||||
If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
|
||||
</supporting-info>
|
||||
Run a `/grilling` session, using the `/domain-modeling` skill.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
|
||||
name: handoff
|
||||
description: Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
|
||||
argument-hint: "What will the next session be used for?"
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Write a handoff document summarising the current conversation so a fresh agent can continue the work. Save to the temporary directory of the user's OS - not the current workspace.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Deepening
|
||||
|
||||
How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency categories
|
||||
|
||||
When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. In-process
|
||||
|
||||
Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable — merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Local-substitutable
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies that have local test stand-ins (PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the stand-in exists. The deepened module is tested with the stand-in running in the test suite. The seam is internal; no port at the module's external interface.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters)
|
||||
|
||||
Your own services across a network boundary (microservices, internal APIs). Define a **port** (interface) at the seam. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected as an **adapter**. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses an HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommendation shape: *"Define a port at the seam, implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic sits in one deep module even though it's deployed across a network."*
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. True external (Mock)
|
||||
|
||||
Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port; tests provide a mock adapter.
|
||||
|
||||
## Seam discipline
|
||||
|
||||
- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a port unless at least two adapters are justified (typically production + test). A single-adapter seam is just indirection.
|
||||
- **Internal seams vs external seams.** A deep module can have internal seams (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the external seam at its interface. Don't expose internal seams through the interface just because tests use them.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer
|
||||
|
||||
- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist — delete them.
|
||||
- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
|
||||
- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
|
||||
- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.
|
||||
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Repo name, date, and a compact legend: solid box = module, dashed line = seam, r
|
||||
|
||||
## Candidate card
|
||||
|
||||
The diagrams carry the weight. Prose is sparse, plain, and uses the glossary terms ([LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md)) without ceremony.
|
||||
The diagrams carry the weight. Prose is sparse, plain, and uses the glossary terms (from the `/codebase-design` skill) without ceremony.
|
||||
|
||||
Each candidate is one `<article>`:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ One larger card. Candidate name, one sentence on why, anchor link to its card. T
|
||||
|
||||
## Tone
|
||||
|
||||
Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md). Concision is not an excuse to drift.
|
||||
Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from the `/codebase-design` skill. Concision is not an excuse to drift.
|
||||
|
||||
**Use exactly:** module, interface, implementation, depth, deep, shallow, seam, adapter, leverage, locality.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -120,4 +120,4 @@ Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight f
|
||||
|
||||
**Wins bullets** name the gain in glossary terms: *"locality: bugs concentrate in one module"*, *"leverage: one interface, N call sites"*, *"interface shrinks; implementation absorbs the wrappers"*. Don't write *"easier to maintain"* or *"cleaner code"* — those terms aren't in the glossary and don't earn their place.
|
||||
|
||||
No hedging, no throat-clearing, no "it's worth noting that…". If a sentence could be a bullet, make it a bullet. If a bullet could be cut, cut it. If a term isn't in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md), reach for one that is before inventing a new one.
|
||||
No hedging, no throat-clearing, no "it's worth noting that…". If a sentence could be a bullet, make it a bullet. If a bullet could be cut, cut it. If a term isn't in the `/codebase-design` glossary, reach for one that is before inventing a new one.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Interface Design
|
||||
|
||||
When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
|
||||
|
||||
Uses the vocabulary in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Frame the problem space
|
||||
|
||||
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
|
||||
|
||||
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
|
||||
- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
||||
- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
|
||||
|
||||
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Spawn sub-agents
|
||||
|
||||
Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
|
||||
|
||||
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
|
||||
|
||||
- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
|
||||
- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
|
||||
- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
|
||||
- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
|
||||
|
||||
Include both [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
|
||||
|
||||
Each sub-agent outputs:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
|
||||
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
|
||||
3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
|
||||
4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
||||
5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Present and compare
|
||||
|
||||
Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
|
||||
|
||||
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.
|
||||
@@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Language
|
||||
|
||||
Shared vocabulary for every suggestion this skill makes. Use these terms exactly — don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
|
||||
|
||||
## Terms
|
||||
|
||||
**Module**
|
||||
Anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic — applies equally to a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice.
|
||||
_Avoid_: unit, component, service.
|
||||
|
||||
**Interface**
|
||||
Everything a caller must know to use the module correctly. Includes the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics.
|
||||
_Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — those refer only to the type-level surface).
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation**
|
||||
What's inside a module — its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for "adapter" when the seam is the topic; "implementation" otherwise.
|
||||
|
||||
**Depth**
|
||||
Leverage at the interface — the amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface. A module is **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Seam** _(from Michael Feathers)_
|
||||
A place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place. The *location* at which a module's interface lives. Choosing where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it.
|
||||
_Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).
|
||||
|
||||
**Adapter**
|
||||
A concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).
|
||||
|
||||
**Leverage**
|
||||
What callers get from depth. More capability per unit of interface they have to learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
|
||||
|
||||
**Locality**
|
||||
What maintainers get from depth. Change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate at one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.
|
||||
|
||||
## Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts — they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.
|
||||
- **The deletion test.** Imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, the module wasn't hiding anything (it was a pass-through). If complexity reappears across N callers, the module was earning its keep.
|
||||
- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.
|
||||
- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationships
|
||||
|
||||
- A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests).
|
||||
- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.
|
||||
- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.
|
||||
- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.
|
||||
- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rejected framings
|
||||
|
||||
- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.
|
||||
- **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow — interface here includes every fact a caller must know.
|
||||
- **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.
|
||||
@@ -1,38 +1,23 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: improve-codebase-architecture
|
||||
description: Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
|
||||
description: Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Improve Codebase Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
|
||||
|
||||
## Glossary
|
||||
This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
|
||||
|
||||
Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Full definitions in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md).
|
||||
|
||||
- **Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, package, slice).
|
||||
- **Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, invariants, error modes, ordering, config. Not just the type signature.
|
||||
- **Implementation** — the code inside.
|
||||
- **Depth** — leverage at the interface: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface. **Deep** = high leverage. **Shallow** = interface nearly as complex as the implementation.
|
||||
- **Seam** — where an interface lives; a place behaviour can be altered without editing in place. (Use this, not "boundary.")
|
||||
- **Adapter** — a concrete thing satisfying an interface at a seam.
|
||||
- **Leverage** — what callers get from depth.
|
||||
- **Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.
|
||||
|
||||
Key principles (see [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) for the full list):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Deletion test**: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
|
||||
- **The interface is the test surface.**
|
||||
- **One adapter = hypothetical seam. Two adapters = real seam.**
|
||||
|
||||
This skill is _informed_ by the project's domain model. The domain language gives names to good seams; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate.
|
||||
- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."
|
||||
- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Explore
|
||||
|
||||
Read the project's domain glossary and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
|
||||
Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
|
||||
|
||||
Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -50,7 +35,7 @@ Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in th
|
||||
|
||||
The report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.
|
||||
|
||||
For each candidate, the same template as before, but rendered as a card:
|
||||
For each candidate, render a card with:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
|
||||
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
|
||||
@@ -61,7 +46,7 @@ For each candidate, the same template as before, but rendered as a card:
|
||||
|
||||
End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
|
||||
|
||||
**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
|
||||
**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the `/codebase-design` vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
|
||||
|
||||
**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -71,11 +56,11 @@ Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which o
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Grilling loop
|
||||
|
||||
Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the design tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
|
||||
Once the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the design tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
|
||||
|
||||
Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:
|
||||
Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — run the `/domain-modeling` skill to keep the domain model current as you go:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/grill-with-docs` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md)). Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
|
||||
- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md`. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
|
||||
- **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
|
||||
- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See [ADR-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).
|
||||
- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones.
|
||||
- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Run the `/codebase-design` skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: prototype
|
||||
description: Build a throwaway prototype to flesh out a design before committing to it. Routes between two branches — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations toggleable from one route. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a data model or state machine, mock up a UI, explore design options, or says "prototype this", "let me play with it", "try a few designs".
|
||||
description: Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Prototype
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: setup-matt-pocock-skills
|
||||
description: Sets up an `## Agent skills` block in AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md and `docs/agents/` so the engineering skills know this repo's issue tracker (GitHub or local markdown), triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run before first use of `to-issues`, `to-prd`, `triage`, `diagnose`, `tdd`, `improve-codebase-architecture`, or `zoom-out` — or if those skills appear to be missing context about the issue tracker, triage labels, or domain docs.
|
||||
description: Configure this repo for the engineering skills — set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -44,6 +44,12 @@ Default posture: these skills were designed for GitHub. If a `git remote` points
|
||||
- **Local markdown** — issues live as files under `.scratch/<feature>/` in this repo (good for solo projects or repos without a remote)
|
||||
- **Other** (Jira, Linear, etc.) — ask the user to describe the workflow in one paragraph; the skill will record it as freeform prose
|
||||
|
||||
If — and only if — the user picked **GitHub** or **GitLab**, ask one follow-up:
|
||||
|
||||
> Explainer: Open-source repos often receive feature requests as pull requests, not just issues — a PR is an issue with attached code. If you turn this on, `/triage` pulls *external* PRs into the same queue and runs them through the same labels and states as issues (collaborators' in-flight PRs are left alone). Leave it off if PRs aren't a request surface for you.
|
||||
|
||||
- **PRs as a request surface** — yes / no (default: no). Record the answer in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. For local-markdown and other trackers, skip this question — there are no PRs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Section B — Triage label vocabulary.**
|
||||
|
||||
> Explainer: When the `triage` skill processes an incoming issue, it moves it through a state machine — needs evaluation, waiting on reporter, ready for an AFK agent to pick up, ready for a human, or won't fix. To do that, it needs to apply labels (or the equivalent in your issue tracker) that match strings *you've actually configured*. If your repo already uses different label names (e.g. `bug:triage` instead of `needs-triage`), map them here so the skill applies the right ones instead of creating duplicates.
|
||||
@@ -60,7 +66,7 @@ Default: each role's string equals its name. Ask the user if they want to overri
|
||||
|
||||
**Section C — Domain docs.**
|
||||
|
||||
> Explainer: Some skills (`improve-codebase-architecture`, `diagnose`, `tdd`) read a `CONTEXT.md` file to learn the project's domain language, and `docs/adr/` for past architectural decisions. They need to know whether the repo has one global context or multiple (e.g. a monorepo with separate frontend/backend contexts) so they look in the right place.
|
||||
> Explainer: Some skills (`improve-codebase-architecture`, `diagnosing-bugs`, `tdd`) read a `CONTEXT.md` file to learn the project's domain language, and `docs/adr/` for past architectural decisions. They need to know whether the repo has one global context or multiple (e.g. a monorepo with separate frontend/backend contexts) so they look in the right place.
|
||||
|
||||
Confirm the layout:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -95,7 +101,7 @@ The block:
|
||||
|
||||
### Issue tracker
|
||||
|
||||
[one-line summary of where issues are tracked]. See `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
|
||||
[one-line summary of where issues are tracked, plus whether external PRs are a triage surface]. See `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Triage labels
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ How the engineering skills should consume this repo's domain documentation when
|
||||
- **`CONTEXT-MAP.md`** at the repo root if it exists — it points at one `CONTEXT.md` per context. Read each one relevant to the topic.
|
||||
- **`docs/adr/`** — read ADRs that touch the area you're about to work in. In multi-context repos, also check `src/<context>/docs/adr/` for context-scoped decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
If any of these files don't exist, **proceed silently**. Don't flag their absence; don't suggest creating them upfront. The producer skill (`/grill-with-docs`) creates them lazily when terms or decisions actually get resolved.
|
||||
If any of these files don't exist, **proceed silently**. Don't flag their absence; don't suggest creating them upfront. The `/domain-modeling` skill (reached via `/grill-with-docs` and `/improve-codebase-architecture`) creates them lazily when terms or decisions actually get resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## File structure
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Multi-context repo (presence of `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the root):
|
||||
|
||||
When your output names a domain concept (in an issue title, a refactor proposal, a hypothesis, a test name), use the term as defined in `CONTEXT.md`. Don't drift to synonyms the glossary explicitly avoids.
|
||||
|
||||
If the concept you need isn't in the glossary yet, that's a signal — either you're inventing language the project doesn't use (reconsider) or there's a real gap (note it for `/grill-with-docs`).
|
||||
If the concept you need isn't in the glossary yet, that's a signal — either you're inventing language the project doesn't use (reconsider) or there's a real gap (note it for `/domain-modeling`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Flag ADR conflicts
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -13,6 +13,18 @@ Issues and PRDs for this repo live as GitHub issues. Use the `gh` CLI for all op
|
||||
|
||||
Infer the repo from `git remote -v` — `gh` does this automatically when run inside a clone.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pull requests as a triage surface
|
||||
|
||||
**PRs as a request surface: no.** _(Set to `yes` if this repo treats external PRs as feature requests; `/triage` reads this flag.)_
|
||||
|
||||
When set to `yes`, PRs run through the same labels and states as issues, using the `gh pr` equivalents:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Read a PR**: `gh pr view <number> --comments` and `gh pr diff <number>` for the diff.
|
||||
- **List external PRs for triage**: `gh pr list --state open --json number,title,body,labels,author,authorAssociation,comments` then keep only `authorAssociation` of `CONTRIBUTOR`, `FIRST_TIME_CONTRIBUTOR`, or `NONE` (drop `OWNER`/`MEMBER`/`COLLABORATOR`).
|
||||
- **Comment / label / close**: `gh pr comment`, `gh pr edit --add-label`/`--remove-label`, `gh pr close`.
|
||||
|
||||
GitHub shares one number space across issues and PRs, so a bare `#42` may be either — resolve with `gh pr view 42` and fall back to `gh issue view 42`.
|
||||
|
||||
## When a skill says "publish to the issue tracker"
|
||||
|
||||
Create a GitHub issue.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -14,6 +14,18 @@ Issues and PRDs for this repo live as GitLab issues. Use the [`glab`](https://gi
|
||||
|
||||
Infer the repo from `git remote -v` — `glab` does this automatically when run inside a clone.
|
||||
|
||||
## Merge requests as a triage surface
|
||||
|
||||
**MRs as a request surface: no.** _(Set to `yes` if this repo treats external merge requests as feature requests; `/triage` reads this flag.)_
|
||||
|
||||
When set to `yes`, MRs run through the same labels and states as issues, using the `glab mr` equivalents:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Read an MR**: `glab mr view <number> --comments` and `glab mr diff <number>` for the diff.
|
||||
- **List external MRs for triage**: `glab mr list -F json`, then keep only MRs whose author is not a project member/owner (a contributor's MR, not a maintainer's in-flight work).
|
||||
- **Comment / label / close**: `glab mr note`, `glab mr update --label`/`--unlabel`, `glab mr close`.
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike GitHub, GitLab numbers issues and MRs separately, so `#42` is unambiguous once you know which surface the maintainer means.
|
||||
|
||||
## When a skill says "publish to the issue tracker"
|
||||
|
||||
Create a GitLab issue.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: tdd
|
||||
description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
|
||||
description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Test-Driven Development
|
||||
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user
|
||||
|
||||
**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tautological tests** restate the implementation inside the assertion, so they pass by construction and give zero confidence. When the expected value is computed the way the code computes it — `expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, snapshotting a figure you derived by hand the same way the code does, asserting a constant equals itself — the test can never disagree with the code: break the code wrong and the assertion breaks wrong with it. The expected value must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
|
||||
|
||||
See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
|
||||
@@ -44,14 +46,13 @@ RIGHT (vertical):
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Planning
|
||||
|
||||
When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
||||
When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
||||
|
||||
Before writing any code:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
|
||||
- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
|
||||
- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
|
||||
- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
|
||||
- [ ] Identify opportunities for deep modules (small interface, deep implementation) — run the `/codebase-design` skill for the vocabulary and the testability checks
|
||||
- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
|
||||
- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -104,6 +105,7 @@ After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
|
||||
[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
|
||||
[ ] Test uses public interface only
|
||||
[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
|
||||
[ ] Expected values are independent literals, not recomputed from the code
|
||||
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
|
||||
[ ] No speculative features added
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Deep Modules
|
||||
|
||||
From "A Philosophy of Software Design":
|
||||
|
||||
**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌─────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Small Interface │ ← Few methods, simple params
|
||||
├─────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ Deep Implementation│ ← Complex logic hidden
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Large Interface │ ← Many methods, complex params
|
||||
├─────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ Thin Implementation │ ← Just passes through
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
When designing interfaces, ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- Can I reduce the number of methods?
|
||||
- Can I simplify the parameters?
|
||||
- Can I hide more complexity inside?
|
||||
@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Interface Design for Testability
|
||||
|
||||
Good interfaces make testing natural:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// Testable
|
||||
function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
|
||||
|
||||
// Hard to test
|
||||
function processOrder(order) {
|
||||
const gateway = new StripeGateway();
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Return results, don't produce side effects**
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// Testable
|
||||
function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
|
||||
|
||||
// Hard to test
|
||||
function applyDiscount(cart): void {
|
||||
cart.total -= discount;
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Small surface area**
|
||||
- Fewer methods = fewer tests needed
|
||||
- Fewer params = simpler test setup
|
||||
@@ -59,3 +59,19 @@ test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
|
||||
expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Tautological tests**: Expected value restates the implementation, so the test passes by construction.
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// BAD: Expected value is recomputed the way the code computes it
|
||||
test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
|
||||
const items = [{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }];
|
||||
const expected = items.reduce((sum, i) => sum + i.price, 0);
|
||||
expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(expected);
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// GOOD: Expected value is an independent, known literal
|
||||
test("calculateTotal sums line items", () => {
|
||||
expect(calculateTotal([{ price: 10 }, { price: 5 }])).toBe(15);
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ Treat the current directory as a teaching workspace. The state of their learning
|
||||
- `RESOURCES.md`: A list of resources which can be explored to ground your teaching in contextual knowledge, or to acquire knowledge and wisdom. Use the format in [RESOURCES-FORMAT.md](./RESOURCES-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
- `./learning-records/*.md`: A directory of learning records, which capture what the user has learned. These are loosely equivalent to architectural decision records in software development - they capture non-obvious lessons and key insights that may need to be revised later, or drive future sessions. These should be used to calculate the zone of proximal development. They are titled `0001-<dash-case-name>.md`, where the number increments each time. Use the format in [LEARNING-RECORD-FORMAT.md](./LEARNING-RECORD-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
- `./lessons/*.html`: A directory of lessons. A **lesson** is a single, self-contained HTML output that teaches one tightly-scoped thing tied to the mission. This is the primary unit of teaching in this workspace.
|
||||
- `./assets/*`: Reusable **components** shared across lessons. See [Assets](#assets).
|
||||
- `NOTES.md`: A scratchpad for you to jot down user preferences, or working notes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Philosophy
|
||||
@@ -59,6 +60,14 @@ Each lesson should recommend a primary source for the user to read or watch. Thi
|
||||
|
||||
Each lesson should contain a reminder to ask followup questions to the agent. The agent is their teacher, and can assist with anything that's unclear.
|
||||
|
||||
## Assets
|
||||
|
||||
Lessons are built from reusable **components**, stored in `./assets/`: stylesheets, quiz widgets, simulators, diagram helpers — anything a second lesson could reuse.
|
||||
|
||||
Reuse is the default, not the exception. Before authoring a lesson, read `./assets/` and build from the components already there. When a lesson needs something new and reusable, write it as a component in `./assets/` and link to it — never inline code a future lesson would duplicate.
|
||||
|
||||
A shared stylesheet is the first component every workspace earns: every lesson links it, so the lessons look like one consistent course rather than a pile of one-offs. As the workspace grows, so should the component library.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Mission
|
||||
|
||||
Every lesson should be tied into the mission - the reason that the user is interested in learning about the topic.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: to-issues
|
||||
description: Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues.
|
||||
description: Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# To Issues
|
||||
@@ -19,16 +20,18 @@ Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes an
|
||||
|
||||
If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
||||
|
||||
Look for opportunities to prefactor the code to make the implementation easier. "Make the change easy, then make the easy change."
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Draft vertical slices
|
||||
|
||||
Break the plan into **tracer bullet** issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
|
||||
|
||||
Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible.
|
||||
|
||||
<vertical-slice-rules>
|
||||
|
||||
- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests)
|
||||
- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
|
||||
- Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones
|
||||
- Any prefactoring should be done first
|
||||
|
||||
</vertical-slice-rules>
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Quiz the user
|
||||
@@ -36,7 +39,6 @@ Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an
|
||||
Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Title**: short descriptive name
|
||||
- **Type**: HITL / AFK
|
||||
- **Blocked by**: which other slices (if any) must complete first
|
||||
- **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -45,7 +47,6 @@ Ask the user:
|
||||
- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
|
||||
- Are the dependency relationships correct?
|
||||
- Should any slices be merged or split further?
|
||||
- Are the correct slices marked as HITL and AFK?
|
||||
|
||||
Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: to-prd
|
||||
description: Turn the current conversation context into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker. Use when user wants to create a PRD from the current context.
|
||||
description: Turn the current conversation into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a PRD. Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know.
|
||||
@@ -11,7 +12,7 @@ The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you
|
||||
|
||||
1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the PRD, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can.
|
||||
2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can. The fewer seams across the codebase, the better - the ideal number is one.
|
||||
|
||||
Check with the user that these seams match their expectations.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
|
||||
# Writing Agent Briefs
|
||||
|
||||
An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
|
||||
An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue or PR when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
|
||||
|
||||
The brief states **what the agent should do**, which stretches to both surfaces: for an issue, that's building the change from nothing; for a PR, it's what's left to do *to the existing diff* — finish it, close gaps, address review points. Same principles either way; the PR example below shows the difference.
|
||||
|
||||
## Principles
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -143,6 +145,43 @@ checked for matches.
|
||||
- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Good agent brief (PR)
|
||||
|
||||
For a PR, "Current behavior" describes the state of the diff, and the brief asks the agent to finish or fix it rather than build from scratch.
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Agent Brief
|
||||
|
||||
**Category:** enhancement
|
||||
**Summary:** Finish the contributor's `--json` output flag for `triage list`
|
||||
|
||||
**Current behavior:**
|
||||
The PR adds a `--json` flag that serializes the issue list to JSON. The happy
|
||||
path works and the diff matches the project's command structure. Two gaps
|
||||
remain: errors are still printed as human text (not JSON), and the new flag has
|
||||
no test coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
**Desired behavior:**
|
||||
With `--json`, all output — including errors — is well-formed JSON on stdout,
|
||||
and the command's exit codes are unchanged. The existing human-readable output
|
||||
is untouched when the flag is absent.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key interfaces:**
|
||||
- The command's error path should emit `{ "error": string }` under `--json`
|
||||
instead of the plain-text error
|
||||
- Reuse the existing serializer the PR already added; don't introduce a second
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance criteria:**
|
||||
- [ ] `triage list --json` emits valid JSON for both success and error cases
|
||||
- [ ] Exit codes match the non-JSON command
|
||||
- [ ] A test covers the `--json` success output and one error case
|
||||
- [ ] Default (non-JSON) output is byte-for-byte unchanged
|
||||
|
||||
**Out of scope:**
|
||||
- Adding `--json` to any other command
|
||||
- Changing the JSON shape of the success payload the PR already defined
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Bad agent brief
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -83,7 +83,11 @@ The maintainer may:
|
||||
|
||||
## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
|
||||
|
||||
Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is rejected as `wontfix`. The flow:
|
||||
Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is *rejected* as `wontfix`. This applies to enhancement PRs exactly as it does to issues — a rejected PR is recorded here so the same request doesn't return as fresh code.
|
||||
|
||||
Do **not** write here when something is closed as `wontfix` because it's **already implemented**. That's a built feature, not a rejected one; recording it would poison the dedup checks with false rejections. Instead, the closing comment points to where the feature already lives.
|
||||
|
||||
The flow:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
|
||||
2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,12 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: triage
|
||||
description: Triage issues through a state machine driven by triage roles. Use when user wants to create an issue, triage issues, review incoming bugs or feature requests, prepare issues for an AFK agent, or manage issue workflow.
|
||||
description: Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles — categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Triage
|
||||
|
||||
Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.
|
||||
|
||||
If this repo treats external pull requests as a request surface (see the issue-tracker config), triage covers them too: **a PR is an issue with attached code** — same roles, same states, same machine, with a few deltas marked "for a PR" below. Resolve a bare `#42` to an issue or PR per the tracker config.
|
||||
|
||||
Every comment or issue posted to the issue tracker during triage **must** start with this disclaimer:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -33,6 +36,8 @@ Five **state** roles:
|
||||
- `ready-for-human` — needs human implementation
|
||||
- `wontfix` — will not be actioned
|
||||
|
||||
For a PR, the same states read against the attached code: `ready-for-agent` means a brief is attached and an agent should take the next step on the diff; `ready-for-human` means it's ready for a human to merge.
|
||||
|
||||
Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
|
||||
|
||||
These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
|
||||
@@ -44,7 +49,7 @@ State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; fro
|
||||
The maintainer invokes `/triage` and describes what they want in natural language. Interpret the request and act. Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Show me anything that needs my attention"
|
||||
- "Let's look at #42"
|
||||
- "Let's look at #42" (issue or PR)
|
||||
- "Move #42 to ready-for-agent"
|
||||
- "What's ready for agents to pick up?"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -56,24 +61,28 @@ Query the issue tracker and present three buckets, oldest first:
|
||||
2. **`needs-triage`** — evaluation in progress.
|
||||
3. **`needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes** — needs re-evaluation.
|
||||
|
||||
Show counts and a one-line summary per issue. Let the maintainer pick.
|
||||
When PRs are in scope, include external PRs in these buckets and tag each line `[PR]` or `[issue]`. Discovery surfaces only *external* PRs (the tracker config defines who counts as external) — a collaborator's in-flight PR is not triage work. This filter is discovery-only; an explicitly named PR is always triaged regardless of author.
|
||||
|
||||
## Triage a specific issue
|
||||
Show counts and a one-line summary per item. Let the maintainer pick.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue (body, comments, labels, reporter, dates). Parse any prior triage notes so you don't re-ask resolved questions. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the area. Read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any prior rejection that resembles this issue.
|
||||
## Triage a specific issue or PR
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the issue. Wait for direction.
|
||||
1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue or PR (body, comments, labels, author, dates; for a PR, the diff too). Parse any prior triage notes so you don't re-ask resolved questions. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the area. Run two checks against the codebase: (a) **redundancy** — search for an existing implementation of the requested behavior by domain concept (not just the request's wording), and report where you looked. If found, it's an already-implemented `wontfix` (step 5). (b) **prior rejection** — read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any that resembles this request.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Reproduce (bugs only).** Before any grilling, attempt reproduction: read the reporter's steps, trace the relevant code, run tests or commands. Report what happened — successful repro with code path, failed repro, or insufficient detail (a strong `needs-info` signal). A confirmed repro makes a much stronger agent brief.
|
||||
2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the request — including whether it's already implemented. Wait for direction.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Grill (if needed).** If the issue needs fleshing out, run a `/grill-with-docs` session.
|
||||
3. **Verify the claim.** Before any grilling, check that the claim holds up. For a bug, reproduce it from the reporter's steps. For a PR, confirm the diff does what it claims — check it out, run the relevant tests or commands. Report what happened: confirmed (with code path), failed, or insufficient detail (a strong `needs-info` signal). A confirmed verification makes a much stronger agent brief.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Grill (if needed).** If the request needs fleshing out, run the `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling` skills together — grill it into shape one question at a time, sharpening domain terms and updating `CONTEXT.md`/ADRs inline as decisions land.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Apply the outcome:**
|
||||
- `ready-for-agent` — post an agent brief comment ([AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md)).
|
||||
- `ready-for-human` — same structure as an agent brief, but note why it can't be delegated (judgment calls, external access, design decisions, manual testing).
|
||||
- `needs-info` — post triage notes (template below).
|
||||
- `wontfix` (bug) — polite explanation, then close.
|
||||
- `wontfix` (enhancement) — write to `.out-of-scope/`, link to it from a comment, then close ([OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md)).
|
||||
- `wontfix` — close, with the comment depending on *why*:
|
||||
- **Already implemented** — the change already exists in the codebase. Point to where it lives; do **not** write to `.out-of-scope/` (that KB is for *rejected* requests, not built ones).
|
||||
- **Rejected (bug)** — polite explanation, then close.
|
||||
- **Rejected (enhancement)** — write to `.out-of-scope/`, link to it from a comment, then close ([OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md)).
|
||||
- `needs-triage` — apply the role. Optional comment if there's partial progress.
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick state override
|
||||
@@ -100,4 +109,4 @@ Capture everything resolved during grilling under "established so far" so the wo
|
||||
|
||||
## Resuming a previous session
|
||||
|
||||
If prior triage notes exist on the issue, read them, check whether the reporter has answered any outstanding questions, and present an updated picture before continuing. Don't re-ask resolved questions.
|
||||
If prior triage notes exist on the issue or PR, read them, check whether the reporter has answered any outstanding questions, and present an updated picture before continuing. Don't re-ask resolved questions.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user