Enhance documentation in DEEPENING.md and INTERFACE-DESIGN.md for clarity and consistency; introduce LANGUAGE.md for shared vocabulary in architectural discussions.

improve-codebase-architecture/DEEPENING.md

@@ -1,32 +1,37 @@
 # Deepening
 
-How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies.
+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.
+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 — just merge the modules and test directly.
+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 (e.g. PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the test substitute exists. The deepened module is tested with the local stand-in running in the test suite.
+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 module boundary. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses the real HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.
+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 shared interface (port), implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic can be tested as one deep module even though it's deployed across a network boundary."*
+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. Mock at the boundary. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port, and tests provide a mock implementation.
+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 are waste once boundary tests 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 boundary.
+- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
-- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the public interface, not internal state.
+- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
-- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behavior, not implementation.
+- 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.

improve-codebase-architecture/INTERFACE-DESIGN.md

@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 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
@@ -9,8 +11,8 @@ When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening can
 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 need to rely on (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+- 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 — this is 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.
 
@@ -18,25 +20,25 @@ Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and th
 
 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's being hidden). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
+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"
+- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
-- Agent 2: "Maximize flexibility — support many use cases and extension"
+- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
-- Agent 3: "Optimize for the most common caller — make the default case trivial"
+- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
-- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around the ports & adapters pattern for cross-boundary dependencies"
+- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
 
-Include CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the project's domain language.
+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 signature (types, methods, params)
+1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
 2. Usage example showing how callers use it
-3. What complexity it hides internally
+3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
-4. Dependency strategy (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
-5. Trade-offs
+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.
+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.

improve-codebase-architecture/LANGUAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# 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**.

improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -5,13 +5,28 @@ description: Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain
 
 # Improve Codebase Architecture
 
-Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that consolidate shallow modules into deeper ones with smaller interfaces. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
+Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
 
-A **deep module** (Ousterhout, "A Philosophy of Software Design") has a small interface hiding a large implementation. Deep modules are easier to test at the boundary and easier for both humans and AI to navigate.
+## Glossary
 
-This skill is _informed_ by the project's domain model — `CONTEXT.md` and any `docs/adr/`. The domain language gives names to good module boundaries; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate.
+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).
 
-See [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../domain-model/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md) and [ADR-FORMAT.md](../domain-model/ADR-FORMAT.md) for the file formats.
+- **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 — `CONTEXT.md` and any `docs/adr/`. The domain language gives names to good seams; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate. See [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../domain-model/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md) and [ADR-FORMAT.md](../domain-model/ADR-FORMAT.md).
 
 ## Process
 
@@ -26,32 +41,32 @@ If any of these files don't exist, proceed silently — don't flag their absence
 
 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:
 
-- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small files?
+- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
-- Where are modules so shallow that the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation?
+- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
-- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called?
+- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)?
-- Where do tightly-coupled modules create integration risk in the seams between them?
+- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
-- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test?
+- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
 
-The friction you encounter IS the signal.
+Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
 
 ### 2. Present candidates
 
 Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
 
-- **Cluster**: which modules/concepts are involved
+- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
-- **Why they're coupled**: shared types, call patterns, co-ownership of a concept
+- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
-- **Dependency category**: see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md)
+- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
-- **Test impact**: what existing tests would be replaced by boundary tests
+- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
 
-**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary when describing candidates.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" rather than "the FooBarHandler."
+**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."
 
-**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction you noticed is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
+**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 (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
 
 Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
 
 ### 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 gets hidden, what tests survive.
+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.
 
 Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize: