mirror of
https://github.com/mattpocock/skills.git
synced 2026-07-29 11:02:41 +07:00
Add new skills for TDD, issue management, PRD creation, and productivity tools
- Introduced TDD skills including deep modules, interface design, mocking, refactoring, and testing guidelines. - Added skills for breaking plans into GitHub issues and creating PRDs from conversation context. - Implemented productivity skills for scaffolding exercises, setting up pre-commit hooks, and managing notes in Obsidian. - Created a caveman communication mode for concise technical responses and a grilling technique for thorough plan discussions. - Developed a skill for writing new agent skills with structured templates and guidelines. - Included git guardrails to prevent dangerous git commands and a migration guide for using @total-typescript/shoehorn in tests.
This commit is contained in:
Matt Pocock
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
||||
# Engineering
|
||||
|
||||
Skills I use daily for code work.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: diagnose
|
||||
description: Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, or describes a performance regression.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Diagnose
|
||||
|
||||
A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
|
||||
|
||||
**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug, you will find the cause — bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume that signal. 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
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
|
||||
9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
|
||||
10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
|
||||
|
||||
Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
|
||||
|
||||
### Iterate on the loop itself
|
||||
|
||||
Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
|
||||
- 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 loop is 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.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2 — Reproduce
|
||||
|
||||
Run the loop. Watch the bug appear.
|
||||
|
||||
Confirm:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3 — Hypothesise
|
||||
|
||||
Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
|
||||
|
||||
Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.
|
||||
|
||||
> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4 — Instrument
|
||||
|
||||
Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**
|
||||
|
||||
Tool preference:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
|
||||
2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
|
||||
3. Never "log everything and grep".
|
||||
|
||||
**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
|
||||
|
||||
If a correct seam exists:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
|
||||
2. Watch it fail.
|
||||
3. Apply the fix.
|
||||
4. Watch it pass.
|
||||
5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem
|
||||
|
||||
Required before declaring done:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
|
||||
- [ ] 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
#!/usr/bin/env bash
|
||||
# Human-in-the-loop reproduction loop.
|
||||
# Copy this file, edit the steps below, and run it.
|
||||
# The agent runs the script; the user follows prompts in their terminal.
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Usage:
|
||||
# bash hitl-loop.template.sh
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Two helpers:
|
||||
# step "<instruction>" → show instruction, wait for Enter
|
||||
# capture VAR "<question>" → show question, read response into VAR
|
||||
#
|
||||
# At the end, captured values are printed as KEY=VALUE for the agent to parse.
|
||||
|
||||
set -euo pipefail
|
||||
|
||||
step() {
|
||||
printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$1"
|
||||
read -r -p " [Enter when done] " _
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
capture() {
|
||||
local var="$1" question="$2" answer
|
||||
printf '\n>>> %s\n' "$question"
|
||||
read -r -p " > " answer
|
||||
printf -v "$var" '%s' "$answer"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
# --- edit below ---------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
step "Open the app at http://localhost:3000 and sign in."
|
||||
|
||||
capture ERRORED "Click the 'Export' button. Did it throw an error? (y/n)"
|
||||
|
||||
capture ERROR_MSG "Paste the error message (or 'none'):"
|
||||
|
||||
# --- edit above ---------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
printf '\n--- Captured ---\n'
|
||||
printf 'ERRORED=%s\n' "$ERRORED"
|
||||
printf 'ERROR_MSG=%s\n' "$ERROR_MSG"
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
||||
# CONTEXT.md Format
|
||||
|
||||
## Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```md
|
||||
# {Context Name}
|
||||
|
||||
{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}
|
||||
|
||||
## Language
|
||||
|
||||
**Order**:
|
||||
{A concise 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationships
|
||||
|
||||
- An **Order** produces one or more **Invoices**
|
||||
- An **Invoice** belongs to exactly one **Customer**
|
||||
|
||||
## Example dialogue
|
||||
|
||||
> **Dev:** "When a **Customer** places an **Order**, do we create the **Invoice** immediately?"
|
||||
> **Domain expert:** "No — an **Invoice** is only generated once a **Fulfillment** is confirmed."
|
||||
|
||||
## Flagged ambiguities
|
||||
|
||||
- "account" was used to mean both **Customer** and **User** — resolved: these are distinct concepts.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others as aliases to avoid.
|
||||
- **Flag conflicts explicitly.** If a term is used ambiguously, call it out in "Flagged ambiguities" with a clear resolution.
|
||||
- **Keep definitions tight.** One sentence max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
|
||||
- **Show relationships.** Use bold term names and express cardinality where obvious.
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
- **Write an example dialogue.** A conversation between a dev and a domain expert that demonstrates how the terms interact naturally and clarifies boundaries between related concepts.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: domain-model
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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).
|
||||
|
||||
Don't couple `CONTEXT.md` to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### Durability over precision
|
||||
|
||||
The issue may sit in `ready-for-agent` for days or weeks. The codebase will change in the meantime. Write the brief so it stays useful even as files are renamed, moved, or refactored.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Do** describe interfaces, types, and behavioral contracts
|
||||
- **Do** name specific types, function signatures, or config shapes that the agent should look for or modify
|
||||
- **Don't** reference file paths — they go stale
|
||||
- **Don't** reference line numbers
|
||||
- **Don't** assume the current implementation structure will remain the same
|
||||
|
||||
### Behavioral, not procedural
|
||||
|
||||
Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent will explore the codebase fresh and make its own implementation decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Good:** "The `SkillConfig` type should accept an optional `schedule` field of type `CronExpression`"
|
||||
- **Bad:** "Open src/types/skill.ts and add a schedule field on line 42"
|
||||
- **Good:** "When a user runs `/triage` with no arguments, they should see a summary of issues needing attention"
|
||||
- **Bad:** "Add a switch statement in the main handler function"
|
||||
|
||||
### Complete acceptance criteria
|
||||
|
||||
The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Good:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
|
||||
- **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
|
||||
|
||||
### Explicit scope boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
State what is out of scope. This prevents the agent from gold-plating or making assumptions about adjacent features.
|
||||
|
||||
## Template
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Agent Brief
|
||||
|
||||
**Category:** bug / enhancement
|
||||
**Summary:** one-line description of what needs to happen
|
||||
|
||||
**Current behavior:**
|
||||
Describe what happens now. For bugs, this is the broken behavior.
|
||||
For enhancements, this is the status quo the feature builds on.
|
||||
|
||||
**Desired behavior:**
|
||||
Describe what should happen after the agent's work is complete.
|
||||
Be specific about edge cases and error conditions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key interfaces:**
|
||||
- `TypeName` — what needs to change and why
|
||||
- `functionName()` return type — what it currently returns vs what it should return
|
||||
- Config shape — any new configuration options needed
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance criteria:**
|
||||
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
|
||||
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
|
||||
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 3
|
||||
|
||||
**Out of scope:**
|
||||
- Thing that should NOT be changed or addressed in this issue
|
||||
- Adjacent feature that might seem related but is separate
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Good agent brief (bug)
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Agent Brief
|
||||
|
||||
**Category:** bug
|
||||
**Summary:** Skill description truncation drops mid-word, producing broken output
|
||||
|
||||
**Current behavior:**
|
||||
When a skill description exceeds 1024 characters, it is truncated at exactly
|
||||
1024 characters regardless of word boundaries. This produces descriptions
|
||||
that end mid-word (e.g. "Use when the user wants to confi").
|
||||
|
||||
**Desired behavior:**
|
||||
Truncation should break at the last word boundary before 1024 characters
|
||||
and append "..." to indicate truncation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key interfaces:**
|
||||
- The `SkillMetadata` type's `description` field — no type change needed,
|
||||
but the validation/processing logic that populates it needs to respect
|
||||
word boundaries
|
||||
- Any function that reads SKILL.md frontmatter and extracts the description
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance criteria:**
|
||||
- [ ] Descriptions under 1024 chars are unchanged
|
||||
- [ ] Descriptions over 1024 chars are truncated at the last word boundary
|
||||
before 1024 chars
|
||||
- [ ] Truncated descriptions end with "..."
|
||||
- [ ] The total length including "..." does not exceed 1024 chars
|
||||
|
||||
**Out of scope:**
|
||||
- Changing the 1024 char limit itself
|
||||
- Multi-line description support
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Good agent brief (enhancement)
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Agent Brief
|
||||
|
||||
**Category:** enhancement
|
||||
**Summary:** Add `.out-of-scope/` directory support for tracking rejected feature requests
|
||||
|
||||
**Current behavior:**
|
||||
When a feature request is rejected, the issue is closed with a `wontfix` label
|
||||
and a comment. There is no persistent record of the decision or reasoning.
|
||||
Future similar requests require the maintainer to recall or search for the
|
||||
prior discussion.
|
||||
|
||||
**Desired behavior:**
|
||||
Rejected feature requests should be documented in `.out-of-scope/<concept>.md`
|
||||
files that capture the decision, reasoning, and links to all issues that
|
||||
requested the feature. When triaging new issues, these files should be
|
||||
checked for matches.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key interfaces:**
|
||||
- Markdown file format in `.out-of-scope/` — each file should have a
|
||||
`# Concept Name` heading, a `**Decision:**` line, a `**Reason:**` line,
|
||||
and a `**Prior requests:**` list with issue links
|
||||
- The triage workflow should read all `.out-of-scope/*.md` files early
|
||||
and match incoming issues against them by concept similarity
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance criteria:**
|
||||
- [ ] Closing a feature as wontfix creates/updates a file in `.out-of-scope/`
|
||||
- [ ] The file includes the decision, reasoning, and link to the closed issue
|
||||
- [ ] If a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists, the new issue is
|
||||
appended to its "Prior requests" list rather than creating a duplicate
|
||||
- [ ] During triage, existing `.out-of-scope/` files are checked and surfaced
|
||||
when a new issue matches a prior rejection
|
||||
|
||||
**Out of scope:**
|
||||
- Automated matching (human confirms the match)
|
||||
- Reopening previously rejected features
|
||||
- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Bad agent brief
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Agent Brief
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary:** Fix the triage bug
|
||||
|
||||
**What to do:**
|
||||
The triage thing is broken. Look at the main file and fix it.
|
||||
The function around line 150 has the issue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Files to change:**
|
||||
- src/triage/handler.ts (line 150)
|
||||
- src/types.ts (line 42)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This is bad because:
|
||||
- No category
|
||||
- Vague description ("the triage thing is broken")
|
||||
- References file paths and line numbers that will go stale
|
||||
- No acceptance criteria
|
||||
- No scope boundaries
|
||||
- No description of current vs desired behavior
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||
# Out-of-Scope Knowledge Base
|
||||
|
||||
The `.out-of-scope/` directory in a repo stores persistent records of rejected feature requests. It serves two purposes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Institutional memory** — why a feature was rejected, so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed
|
||||
2. **Deduplication** — when a new issue comes in that matches a prior rejection, the skill can surface the previous decision instead of re-litigating it
|
||||
|
||||
## Directory structure
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
.out-of-scope/
|
||||
├── dark-mode.md
|
||||
├── plugin-system.md
|
||||
└── graphql-api.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thing are grouped under one file.
|
||||
|
||||
## File format
|
||||
|
||||
The file should be written in a relaxed, readable style — more like a short design document than a database entry. Use paragraphs, code samples, and examples to make the reasoning clear and useful to someone encountering it for the first time.
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Dark Mode
|
||||
|
||||
This project does not support dark mode or user-facing theming.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this is out of scope
|
||||
|
||||
The rendering pipeline assumes a single color palette defined in
|
||||
`ThemeConfig`. Supporting multiple themes would require:
|
||||
|
||||
- A theme context provider wrapping the entire component tree
|
||||
- Per-component theme-aware style resolution
|
||||
- A persistence layer for user theme preferences
|
||||
|
||||
This is a significant architectural change that doesn't align with the
|
||||
project's focus on content authoring. Theming is a concern for downstream
|
||||
consumers who embed or redistribute the output.
|
||||
|
||||
```ts
|
||||
// The current ThemeConfig interface is not designed for runtime switching:
|
||||
interface ThemeConfig {
|
||||
colors: ColorPalette; // single palette, resolved at build time
|
||||
fonts: FontStack;
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Prior requests
|
||||
|
||||
- #42 — "Add dark mode support"
|
||||
- #87 — "Night theme for accessibility"
|
||||
- #134 — "Dark theme option"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Naming the file
|
||||
|
||||
Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugin-system.md`, `graphql-api.md`. The name should be recognizable enough that someone browsing the directory understands what was rejected without opening the file.
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing the reason
|
||||
|
||||
The reason should be substantive — not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
|
||||
|
||||
- Project scope or philosophy ("This project focuses on X; theming is a downstream concern")
|
||||
- Technical constraints ("Supporting this would require Y, which conflicts with our Z architecture")
|
||||
- Strategic decisions ("We chose to use A instead of B because...")
|
||||
|
||||
The reason should be durable. Avoid referencing temporary circumstances ("we're too busy right now") — those aren't real rejections, they're deferrals.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to check `.out-of-scope/`
|
||||
|
||||
During triage (Step 1: Gather context), read all files in `.out-of-scope/`. When evaluating a new issue:
|
||||
|
||||
- Check if the request matches an existing out-of-scope concept
|
||||
- Matching is by concept similarity, not keyword — "night theme" matches `dark-mode.md`
|
||||
- If there's a match, surface it to the maintainer: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/dark-mode.md` — we rejected this before because [reason]. Do you still feel the same way?"
|
||||
|
||||
The maintainer may:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Confirm** — the new issue gets added to the existing file's "Prior requests" list, then closed
|
||||
- **Reconsider** — the out-of-scope file gets deleted or updated, and the issue proceeds through normal triage
|
||||
- **Disagree** — the issues are related but distinct, proceed with normal triage
|
||||
|
||||
## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
|
||||
|
||||
Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is rejected as `wontfix`. The flow:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
|
||||
2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
|
||||
3. If yes: append the new issue to the "Prior requests" list
|
||||
4. If no: create a new file with the concept name, decision, reason, and first prior request
|
||||
5. Post a comment on the issue explaining the decision and mentioning the `.out-of-scope/` file
|
||||
6. Close the issue with the `wontfix` label
|
||||
|
||||
## Updating or removing out-of-scope files
|
||||
|
||||
If the maintainer changes their mind about a previously rejected concept:
|
||||
|
||||
- Delete the `.out-of-scope/` file
|
||||
- The skill does not need to reopen old issues — they're historical records
|
||||
- The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: github-triage
|
||||
description: Triage GitHub issues through a label-based state machine. 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.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# GitHub Issue Triage
|
||||
|
||||
Triage issues in the current repo using a label-based state machine. Infer the repo from `git remote`. Use `gh` for all GitHub operations.
|
||||
|
||||
## AI Disclaimer
|
||||
|
||||
Every comment or issue posted to GitHub during triage **must** include the following disclaimer at the top of the comment body, before any other content:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Reference docs
|
||||
|
||||
- [AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md) — how to write durable agent briefs
|
||||
- [OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md) — how the `.out-of-scope/` knowledge base works
|
||||
|
||||
## Labels
|
||||
|
||||
| Label | Type | Description |
|
||||
| ----------------- | -------- | ---------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `bug` | Category | Something is broken |
|
||||
| `enhancement` | Category | New feature or improvement |
|
||||
| `needs-triage` | State | Maintainer needs to evaluate this issue |
|
||||
| `needs-info` | State | Waiting on reporter for more information |
|
||||
| `ready-for-agent` | State | Fully specified, ready for AFK agent |
|
||||
| `ready-for-human` | State | Requires human implementation |
|
||||
| `wontfix` | State | Will not be actioned |
|
||||
|
||||
Every issue should have exactly **one** state label and **one** category label. If an issue has conflicting state labels (e.g. both `needs-triage` and `ready-for-agent`), flag the conflict and ask the maintainer which state is correct before doing anything else. Provide a recommendation.
|
||||
|
||||
## State Machine
|
||||
|
||||
| Current State | Can transition to | Who triggers it | What happens |
|
||||
| -------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| `unlabeled` | `needs-triage` | Skill (on first look) | Issue needs maintainer evaluation. Skill applies label after presenting recommendation. |
|
||||
| `unlabeled` | `ready-for-agent` | Maintainer (via skill) | Issue is already well-specified and agent-suitable. Skill writes agent brief comment, applies label. |
|
||||
| `unlabeled` | `ready-for-human` | Maintainer (via skill) | Issue requires human implementation. Skill writes a brief comment summarizing the task, applies label. |
|
||||
| `unlabeled` | `wontfix` | Maintainer (via skill) | Issue is spam, duplicate, or out of scope. Skill closes with comment (and writes `.out-of-scope/` for enhancements). |
|
||||
| `needs-triage` | `needs-info` | Maintainer (via skill) | Issue is underspecified. Skill posts triage notes capturing progress so far + questions for reporter. |
|
||||
| `needs-triage` | `ready-for-agent` | Maintainer (via skill) | Grilling session complete, agent-suitable. Skill writes agent brief comment, applies label. |
|
||||
| `needs-triage` | `ready-for-human` | Maintainer (via skill) | Grilling session complete, needs human. Skill writes a brief comment summarizing the task, applies label. |
|
||||
| `needs-triage` | `wontfix` | Maintainer (via skill) | Maintainer decides not to action. Skill closes with comment (and writes `.out-of-scope/` for enhancements). |
|
||||
| `needs-info` | `needs-triage` | Skill (detects reply) | Reporter has replied. Skill surfaces to maintainer for re-evaluation. |
|
||||
|
||||
An issue can only move along these transitions. The maintainer can override any state directly (see Quick State Override below), but the skill should flag if the transition is unusual.
|
||||
|
||||
## Invocation
|
||||
|
||||
The maintainer invokes `/github-triage` then describes what they want in natural language. The skill interprets the request and takes the appropriate action.
|
||||
|
||||
Example requests:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Show me anything that needs my attention"
|
||||
- "Let's look at #42"
|
||||
- "Move #42 to ready-for-agent"
|
||||
- "What's ready for agents to pick up?"
|
||||
- "Are there any unlabeled issues?"
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow: Show What Needs Attention
|
||||
|
||||
When the maintainer asks for an overview, query GitHub and present a summary grouped into three buckets:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Unlabeled issues** — new, no labels at all. These have never been triaged.
|
||||
2. **`needs-triage` issues** — maintainer needs to evaluate or continue evaluating.
|
||||
3. **`needs-info` issues with new activity** — the reporter has commented since the last triage notes comment. Check comment timestamps to determine this.
|
||||
|
||||
Display counts per group. Within each group, show issues oldest first (longest-waiting gets attention first). For each issue, show: number, title, age, and a one-line summary of the issue body.
|
||||
|
||||
Let the maintainer pick which issue to dive into.
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow: Triage a Specific Issue
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Gather context
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting anything to the maintainer:
|
||||
|
||||
- Read the full issue: body, all comments, all labels, who reported it, when
|
||||
- If there are prior triage notes comments (from previous sessions), parse them to understand what has already been established
|
||||
- Explore the codebase to build context — understand the domain, relevant interfaces, and existing behavior related to the issue
|
||||
- Read `.out-of-scope/*.md` files and check if this issue matches or is similar to a previously rejected concept
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Present a recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the maintainer:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Category recommendation:** bug or enhancement, with reasoning
|
||||
- **State recommendation:** where this issue should go, with reasoning
|
||||
- If it matches a prior out-of-scope rejection, surface that: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/concept-name.md` — we rejected this before because X. Do you still feel the same way?"
|
||||
- A brief summary of what you found in the codebase that's relevant
|
||||
|
||||
Then wait for the maintainer's direction. They may:
|
||||
|
||||
- Agree and ask you to apply labels → do it
|
||||
- Want to flesh it out → start a /domain-model session
|
||||
- Override with a different state → apply their choice
|
||||
- Want to discuss → have a conversation
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Bug reproduction (bugs only)
|
||||
|
||||
If the issue is categorized as a bug, attempt to reproduce it before starting a /domain-model session. This will vary by codebase, but do your best:
|
||||
|
||||
- Read the reporter's reproduction steps (if provided)
|
||||
- Explore the codebase to understand the relevant code paths
|
||||
- Try to reproduce the bug: run tests, execute commands, or trace the logic to confirm the reported behavior
|
||||
- If reproduction succeeds, report what you found to the maintainer — include the specific behavior you observed and where in the code it originates
|
||||
- If reproduction fails, report that too — the bug may be environment-specific, already fixed, or the report may be inaccurate
|
||||
- If the report lacks enough detail to attempt reproduction, note that — this is a strong signal the issue should move to `needs-info`
|
||||
|
||||
The reproduction attempt informs the /domain-model session and the agent brief. A confirmed reproduction with a known code path makes for a much stronger brief.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: /domain-model session (if needed)
|
||||
|
||||
If the issue needs to be fleshed out before it's ready for an agent, interview the maintainer to build a complete specification. Use the /domain-model skill.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Apply the outcome
|
||||
|
||||
Depending on the outcome:
|
||||
|
||||
- **ready-for-agent** — post an agent brief comment (see [AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md))
|
||||
- **ready-for-human** — post a comment summarizing the task, what was established during triage, and why it needs human implementation. Use the same structure as an agent brief but note the reason it can't be delegated to an agent (e.g. requires judgment calls, external system access, design decisions, or manual testing).
|
||||
- **needs-info** — post triage notes with progress so far and questions for the reporter (see Needs Info Output below)
|
||||
- **wontfix (bug)** — post a polite comment explaining why, then close the issue
|
||||
- **wontfix (enhancement)** — write to `.out-of-scope/`, post a comment linking to it, then close the issue (see [OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md))
|
||||
- **needs-triage** — apply the label. Optionally leave a comment if there's partial progress to capture.
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow: Quick State Override
|
||||
|
||||
When the maintainer explicitly tells you to move an issue to a specific state (e.g. "move #42 to ready-for-agent"), trust their judgment and apply the label directly.
|
||||
|
||||
Still show a confirmation of what you're about to do: which labels will be added/removed, and whether you'll post a comment or close the issue. But skip the /domain-model session entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
If moving to `ready-for-agent` without a /domain-model session, ask the maintainer if they want to write a brief agent brief comment or skip it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Needs Info Output
|
||||
|
||||
When moving an issue to `needs-info`, post a comment that captures the interview progress and tells the reporter what's needed:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Triage Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**What we've established so far:**
|
||||
|
||||
- point 1
|
||||
- point 2
|
||||
|
||||
**What we still need from you (@reporter):**
|
||||
|
||||
- question 1
|
||||
- question 2
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Include everything resolved during the /domain-model session in "established so far" — this work should not be lost. The questions for the reporter should be specific and actionable, not vague ("please provide more info").
|
||||
|
||||
## Resuming Previous Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
When triaging an issue that already has triage notes from a previous session:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Read all comments to find prior triage notes
|
||||
2. Parse what was already established
|
||||
3. Check if the reporter has answered any outstanding questions
|
||||
4. Present the maintainer with an updated picture: "Here's where we left off, and here's what the reporter has said since"
|
||||
5. Continue the /domain-model session from where it stopped — do not re-ask resolved questions
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -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**.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# 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
|
||||
|
||||
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 — `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
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Explore
|
||||
|
||||
Read existing documentation first:
|
||||
|
||||
- `CONTEXT.md` (or `CONTEXT-MAP.md` + each `CONTEXT.md` in a multi-context repo)
|
||||
- Relevant ADRs in `docs/adr/` (and any context-scoped `docs/adr/` directories)
|
||||
|
||||
If any of these files don't exist, proceed silently — don't flag their absence or suggest creating them upfront.
|
||||
|
||||
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 modules?
|
||||
- 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 (no **locality**)?
|
||||
- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
|
||||
- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
|
||||
|
||||
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:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
|
||||
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
|
||||
- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
|
||||
- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
|
||||
|
||||
**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 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 sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
|
||||
|
||||
Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/domain-model` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../domain-model/CONTEXT-FORMAT.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](../domain-model/ADR-FORMAT.md).
|
||||
- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Test-Driven Development
|
||||
|
||||
## Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
|
||||
|
||||
**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
|
||||
|
||||
**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.
|
||||
|
||||
See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
|
||||
|
||||
**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
|
||||
|
||||
This produces **crap tests**:
|
||||
|
||||
- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
|
||||
- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
|
||||
- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
|
||||
- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
WRONG (horizontal):
|
||||
RED: test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
|
||||
GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
|
||||
|
||||
RIGHT (vertical):
|
||||
RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
|
||||
RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
|
||||
RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Planning
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
|
||||
- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
|
||||
|
||||
Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
|
||||
|
||||
**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Tracer Bullet
|
||||
|
||||
Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
RED: Write test for first behavior → test fails
|
||||
GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Incremental Loop
|
||||
|
||||
For each remaining behavior:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
RED: Write next test → fails
|
||||
GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- One test at a time
|
||||
- Only enough code to pass current test
|
||||
- Don't anticipate future tests
|
||||
- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Refactor
|
||||
|
||||
After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Extract duplication
|
||||
- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
|
||||
- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
|
||||
- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
|
||||
- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
|
||||
|
||||
**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Per Cycle
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
|
||||
[ ] Test uses public interface only
|
||||
[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
|
||||
[ ] Code is minimal for this test
|
||||
[ ] No speculative features added
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# 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?
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
# 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
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
||||
# When to Mock
|
||||
|
||||
Mock at **system boundaries** only:
|
||||
|
||||
- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
|
||||
- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
|
||||
- Time/randomness
|
||||
- File system (sometimes)
|
||||
|
||||
Don't mock:
|
||||
|
||||
- Your own classes/modules
|
||||
- Internal collaborators
|
||||
- Anything you control
|
||||
|
||||
## Designing for Mockability
|
||||
|
||||
At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Use dependency injection**
|
||||
|
||||
Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// Easy to mock
|
||||
function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
|
||||
return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Hard to mock
|
||||
function processPayment(order) {
|
||||
const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
|
||||
return client.charge(order.total);
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
|
||||
|
||||
Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
|
||||
const api = {
|
||||
getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
|
||||
getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
|
||||
createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
|
||||
const api = {
|
||||
fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
|
||||
};
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The SDK approach means:
|
||||
- Each mock returns one specific shape
|
||||
- No conditional logic in test setup
|
||||
- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
|
||||
- Type safety per endpoint
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
# Refactor Candidates
|
||||
|
||||
After TDD cycle, look for:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
|
||||
- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
|
||||
- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
|
||||
- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
|
||||
- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
|
||||
- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
||||
# Good and Bad Tests
|
||||
|
||||
## Good Tests
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
|
||||
test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
|
||||
const cart = createCart();
|
||||
cart.add(product);
|
||||
const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
|
||||
expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Characteristics:
|
||||
|
||||
- Tests behavior users/callers care about
|
||||
- Uses public API only
|
||||
- Survives internal refactors
|
||||
- Describes WHAT, not HOW
|
||||
- One logical assertion per test
|
||||
|
||||
## Bad Tests
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// BAD: Tests implementation details
|
||||
test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
|
||||
const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
|
||||
await checkout(cart, payment);
|
||||
expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Red flags:
|
||||
|
||||
- Mocking internal collaborators
|
||||
- Testing private methods
|
||||
- Asserting on call counts/order
|
||||
- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
|
||||
- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
|
||||
- Verifying through external means instead of interface
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
|
||||
test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
|
||||
await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
|
||||
const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
|
||||
expect(row).toBeDefined();
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// GOOD: Verifies through interface
|
||||
test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
|
||||
const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
|
||||
const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
|
||||
expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: to-issues
|
||||
description: Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# To Issues
|
||||
|
||||
Break a plan into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Gather context
|
||||
|
||||
Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes a GitHub issue number or URL as an argument, fetch it with `gh issue view <number>` (with comments).
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Explore the codebase (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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
|
||||
</vertical-slice-rules>
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Quiz the user
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Create the GitHub issues
|
||||
|
||||
For each approved slice, create a GitHub issue using `gh issue create`. Use the issue body template below.
|
||||
|
||||
Create issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue numbers in the "Blocked by" field.
|
||||
|
||||
<issue-template>
|
||||
## Parent
|
||||
|
||||
#<parent-issue-number> (if the source was a GitHub issue, otherwise omit this section)
|
||||
|
||||
## What to build
|
||||
|
||||
A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Acceptance criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Criterion 1
|
||||
- [ ] Criterion 2
|
||||
- [ ] Criterion 3
|
||||
|
||||
## Blocked by
|
||||
|
||||
- Blocked by #<issue-number> (if any)
|
||||
|
||||
Or "None - can start immediately" if no blockers.
|
||||
|
||||
</issue-template>
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: to-prd
|
||||
description: Turn the current conversation context into a PRD and submit it as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to create a PRD from the current context.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Sketch out the major modules you will need to build or modify to complete the implementation. Actively look for opportunities to extract deep modules that can be tested in isolation.
|
||||
|
||||
A deep module (as opposed to a shallow module) is one which encapsulates a lot of functionality in a simple, testable interface which rarely changes.
|
||||
|
||||
Check with the user that these modules match their expectations. Check with the user which modules they want tests written for.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Write the PRD using the template below and submit it as a GitHub issue.
|
||||
|
||||
<prd-template>
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
## Solution
|
||||
|
||||
The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
## User Stories
|
||||
|
||||
A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:
|
||||
|
||||
1. As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>
|
||||
|
||||
<user-story-example>
|
||||
1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending
|
||||
</user-story-example>
|
||||
|
||||
This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
|
||||
|
||||
- The modules that will be built/modified
|
||||
- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
|
||||
- Technical clarifications from the developer
|
||||
- Architectural decisions
|
||||
- Schema changes
|
||||
- API contracts
|
||||
- Specific interactions
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
|
||||
|
||||
- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
|
||||
- Which modules will be tested
|
||||
- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)
|
||||
|
||||
## Out of Scope
|
||||
|
||||
A description of the things that are out of scope for this PRD.
|
||||
|
||||
## Further Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Any further notes about the feature.
|
||||
|
||||
</prd-template>
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: zoom-out
|
||||
description: Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective. Use when you're unfamiliar with a section of code or need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know this area of code well. Go up a layer of abstraction. Give me a map of all the relevant modules and callers.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user