diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/code-review/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/code-review/SKILL.md index 2d276fe8..e28d7acb 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/code-review/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/code-review/SKILL.md @@ -1,32 +1,32 @@ --- name: code-review -description: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X". +description: "Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\"." --- Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies: -- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards? -- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec? +- **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards? +- **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec? Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. -The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing. +The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. ## Process ### 1. Pin the fixed point -Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it. +Whatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it. Capture the diff command once: `git diff ...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log ..HEAD --oneline`. -Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse `) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents. +Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse `) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents. ### 2. Identify the spec source Look for the originating spec, in this order: -1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. +1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.), fetched via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. 2. A path the user passed as an argument. 3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature. 4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available". @@ -35,35 +35,35 @@ Look for the originating spec, in this order: Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`. -On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it: +On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it: - **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell. -- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces. +- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces. Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff: -- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky. -- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both. -- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies. -- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that. -- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type. -- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share. -- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module. -- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason. -- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows. -- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object. -- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct. -- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition. +- **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky. +- **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both. +- **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies. +- **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that. +- **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type. +- **Repeated Switches**: the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share. +- **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module. +- **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason. +- **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows. +- **Message Chains**: long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object. +- **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct. +- **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition. ### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel -**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include: +**Standards sub-agent prompt** should include: - The full diff command and commit list. -- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it. -- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words." +- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it). +- The brief: "Report, per file/hunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words." -**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include: +**Spec sub-agent prompt** should include: - The diff command and commit list. - The path or fetched contents of the spec. @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final repor ### 5. Aggregate -Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_). +Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_). -End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent. +End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent. ## Why two axes diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md index 3938457b..cd94075c 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # Deepening -How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**. +How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**. ## Dependency categories @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The categor ### 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. +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 @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened modu ## 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. +- 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. +- Tests should survive internal refactors, since they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface. diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md index 8419ad6f..7edc861a 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ # Design It Twice -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. +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 [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**. +Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**. ## Process @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space - 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 +- 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. @@ -22,23 +22,23 @@ Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel. Each must produce a **radically different** int 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 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 [SKILL.md](SKILL.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) +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 +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. +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. diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/SKILL.md index 16620c24..3f63c814 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/codebase-design/SKILL.md @@ -9,23 +9,23 @@ Design **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at ## Glossary -Use these terms exactly — don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point. +Use these terms exactly: don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point. -**Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service. +**Module**: anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service. -**Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — they refer only to the type-level surface). +**Interface**: everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow, they 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. +**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, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation. +**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, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation. -**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_ — a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. Where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it. _Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context). +**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_: a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. 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). +**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 learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests. +**Leverage**: what callers get from depth. More capability per unit of interface they learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests. -**Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere. +**Locality**: what maintainers get from depth. Change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere. ## Deep vs shallow @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ When designing an interface, ask: ## 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. +- **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, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it 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. @@ -105,10 +105,10 @@ Good interfaces make testing natural: ## 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. +- **"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**. ## Going deeper -- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies** — see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing. -- **Exploring alternative interfaces** — see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement. +- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies**, see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing. +- **Exploring alternative interfaces**, see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement. diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md index 7f8acf7e..061c25a5 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md @@ -11,22 +11,22 @@ When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear men ## Redact -This skill has you show commands, outputs and captured artifacts. **Redact every secret first** — write `` in its place. Build loops against env vars, so the credential stays in the environment rather than in what you show. Captured artifacts carry auth headers: quote only the lines that carry the signal. +This skill has you show commands, outputs and captured artifacts. **Redact every secret first**: write `` in its place. Build loops against env vars, so the credential stays in the environment rather than in what you show. Captured artifacts carry auth headers: quote only the lines that carry the signal. If the redacted output is not enough to diagnose the bug, say so and ask the user. -## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop +## Phase 1: Build a feedback loop -**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug — one that goes red on _this_ bug — you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you. +**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug (one that goes red on _this_ bug), you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you. Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.** -### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order +### Ways to construct one, in roughly this order -1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e. +1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug: unit, integration, e2e. 2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server. 3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot. -4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network. +4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) that drives the UI and asserts on DOM/console/network. 5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation. 6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call. 7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode. @@ -44,48 +44,48 @@ Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it: - Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".) - Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.) -A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight — a debugging superpower. +A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight, a debugging superpower. ### Non-deterministic bugs -The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable. +The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not, so keep raising the rate until it's debuggable. ### When you genuinely cannot build a loop Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a redacted captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop. -### Completion criterion — a tight loop that goes red +### Completion criterion: a tight loop that goes red -Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** — a script path, a test invocation, a curl — that you have **already run at least once** (show the invocation and its output, redacted), and that is: +Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** (a script path, a test invocation, a curl) that you have **already run at least once** (show the invocation and its output, redacted), and that is: -- [ ] **Red-capable** — it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring" — it must be able to _catch this specific bug_. -- [ ] **Deterministic** — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above). -- [ ] **Fast** — seconds, not minutes. -- [ ] **Agent-runnable** — you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`. +- [ ] **Red-capable**: it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring"; it must be able to _catch this specific bug_. +- [ ] **Deterministic**: same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above). +- [ ] **Fast**: seconds, not minutes. +- [ ] **Agent-runnable**: you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`. -If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop — jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2. +If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop: jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2. -## Phase 2 — Reproduce + minimise +## Phase 2: Reproduce + minimise -Run the loop. Watch it go red — the bug appears. +Run the loop. Watch it go red as the bug appears. Confirm: -- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix. +- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described, not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix. - [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against). - [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it. ### Minimise -Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut — keep only what's load-bearing for the failure. +Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut, and keep only what's load-bearing for the failure. Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5. -Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing** — removing any one of them makes the loop go green. +Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing**: removing any one of them makes the loop go green. Do not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised. -## Phase 3 — Hypothesise +## Phase 3: Hypothesise Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea. @@ -93,11 +93,11 @@ Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes. > Format: "If is the cause, then will make the bug disappear / will make it worse." -If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it. +If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe: discard or sharpen it. -**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK. +**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it; proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK. -## Phase 4 — Instrument +## Phase 4: Instrument Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.** @@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ Tool preference: **Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second. -## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test +## Phase 5: Fix + regression test -Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it. +Write the regression test **before the fix**, but only if there is a **correct seam** for it. A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence. @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ If a correct seam exists: 4. Watch it pass. 5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario. -## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem +## Phase 6: Cleanup Required before declaring done: @@ -135,6 +135,4 @@ Required before declaring done: - [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented) - [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix) - [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location) -- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message — so the next debugger learns - -**Then ask: what would have prevented this bug?** If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to the `/improve-codebase-architecture` skill with the specifics. Make the recommendation **after** the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started. +- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message, so the next debugger learns diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh b/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh index 43daedd1..24319846 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh +++ b/skills/thirdparty/diagnosing-bugs/scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ # # At the end, captured values are printed as KEY=VALUE for the agent to parse. # -# `capture` prints its value back to the terminal, where the agent reads it — so -# capture observations, and leave signing in to the user as a `step`. +# `capture` prints its value back to the terminal, where the agent reads it, +# so capture observations, and leave signing in to the user as a `step`. set -euo pipefail diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md b/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md index da7e78ec..d7e61f30 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ 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. +Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily: only when the first ADR is needed. ## Template @@ -12,15 +12,15 @@ Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed. {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. +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 +- **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 @@ -30,18 +30,18 @@ Scan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one. 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 +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." +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. +- **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. +- **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. diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md b/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md index eaf2a185..79bbb32f 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ _Avoid_: Client, buyer, account ## 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 +- [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 diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/SKILL.md index e660e8cc..9b97707e 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/domain-modeling/SKILL.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing cod # Domain Modeling -Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the *active* discipline — challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely *reading* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill — that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.) +Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the *active* discipline: challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely *reading* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill: that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.) ## File structure @@ -37,17 +37,17 @@ If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The ma │ └── 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. +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?" +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." +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 @@ -55,11 +55,11 @@ When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific sc ### 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?" +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). +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. @@ -67,8 +67,8 @@ When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up 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 +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). diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md index bed05d2b..62b9efb6 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ description: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also crea disable-model-invocation: true --- -Run a `/grilling` session, using the `/domain-modeling` skill. +Call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling". diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/grilling/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/grilling/SKILL.md index 95bd01ee..8ca78c6d 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/grilling/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/grilling/SKILL.md @@ -5,18 +5,24 @@ description: Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use wh Interview the user relentlessly until you reach a shared understanding. Map this as a **design tree**: every decision branches into the decisions that hang off it. -Work the tree in **rounds**. The **frontier** is every decision whose prerequisites are already settled — the questions you can ask _now_ without guessing at answers you haven't heard yet. Ask the whole frontier in one round: number each question and give your recommended answer. Then wait for the user's answers before the next round. +Work the tree in **rounds**. The **frontier** is every decision whose prerequisites are already settled: the questions you can ask _now_ without guessing at answers you haven't heard yet. Ask the whole frontier in one round: number each question and give your recommended answer. Then wait for the user's answers before the next round. -Each question should be formatted like so: +Format a round like so: ``` ❓ **Q1** - ****: +➡️ + +--- + +❓ **Q2** - ****: + ➡️ ``` -Each round the user answers reshapes the tree — settled decisions push the frontier outward and unblock questions that depended on them. Recompute the frontier and ask the next round. A question whose answer depends on another question still open in this round belongs to a _later_ round, not this one. +Each round the user answers reshapes the tree: settled decisions push the frontier outward and unblock questions that depended on them. Recompute the frontier and ask the next round. A question whose answer depends on another question still open in this round belongs to a _later_ round, not this one. -Finding _facts_ is your job, never the user's. When a frontier question needs a fact from the environment (filesystem, tools, etc.), dispatch a sub-agent to find it — don't ask the user for anything you could look up yourself. Don't block on it: a running exploration is an unsettled prerequisite, so only the questions downstream of it wait for the sub-agent to report — ask the rest of the frontier now. The _decisions_ are the user's — put each to them and wait. +Finding _facts_ is your job, never the user's. When a frontier question needs a fact from the environment (filesystem, tools, etc.), dispatch a sub-agent to find it; don't ask the user for anything you could look up yourself. Don't block on it: a running exploration is an unsettled prerequisite, so only the questions downstream of it wait for the sub-agent to report; ask the rest of the frontier now. The _decisions_ are the user's: put each to them and wait. The session is done when the frontier is empty: every branch of the design tree visited, nothing left silently assumed. Do not act on it until the user confirms you have reached a shared understanding. diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/handoff/SKILL.md b/skills/thirdparty/handoff/SKILL.md index 043d9e13..2eb98a51 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/handoff/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/handoff/SKILL.md @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ 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. -Include a "suggested skills" section in the document, which suggests skills that the agent should invoke. +Include a "suggested skills" section in the document, naming which skills the next agent should call the Skill tool for. Do not duplicate content already captured in other artifacts (specs, plans, ADRs, issues, commits, diffs). Reference them by path or URL instead. diff --git a/skills/thirdparty/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md b/skills/thirdparty/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md index 17f6d2c7..e39e8255 100644 --- a/skills/thirdparty/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md +++ b/skills/thirdparty/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # HTML Report Format -The architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the OS temp directory. Tailwind and Mermaid both come from CDNs. Mermaid handles graph-shaped diagrams reliably; hand-built divs and inline SVG handle the more editorial visuals (mass diagrams, cross-sections). Mix the two — don't lean on Mermaid for everything, it'll start to look generic. +The architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the OS temp directory. Tailwind and Mermaid both come from CDNs. Mermaid handles graph-shaped diagrams reliably; hand-built divs and inline SVG handle the more editorial visuals (mass diagrams, cross-sections). Mix the two: don't lean on Mermaid for everything, it'll start to look generic. ## Scaffold @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ The architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the - Architecture review — {{repo name}} + Architecture review for {{repo name}}