Rename skills for clarity: update 'write-a-prd' to 'to-prd' and 'prd-to-issues' to 'to-issues' in README.md

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

README.md

@@ -6,22 +6,16 @@ A collection of agent skills that extend capabilities across planning, developme
 
 These skills help you think through problems before writing code.
 
-- **write-a-prd** — Create a PRD through an interactive interview, codebase exploration, and module design. Filed as a GitHub issue.
+- **to-prd** — Turn the current conversation context into a PRD and submit it as a GitHub issue. No interview — just synthesizes what you've already discussed.
 
   ```
-  npx skills@latest add mattpocock/skills/write-a-prd
+  npx skills@latest add mattpocock/skills/to-prd
   ```
 
-- **prd-to-plan** — Turn a PRD into a multi-phase implementation plan using tracer-bullet vertical slices.
+- **to-issues** — Break any plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using vertical slices.
 
   ```
-  npx skills@latest add mattpocock/skills/prd-to-plan
-  ```
-
-- **prd-to-issues** — Break a PRD into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using vertical slices.
-
-  ```
-  npx skills@latest add mattpocock/skills/prd-to-issues
+  npx skills@latest add mattpocock/skills/to-issues
   ```
 
 - **grill-me** — Get relentlessly interviewed about a plan or design until every branch of the decision tree is resolved.

caveman/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+name: caveman
+description: >
+  Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by dropping
+  filler, articles, and pleasantries while keeping full technical accuracy.
+  Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman",
+  "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman.
+---
+
+Respond terse like smart caveman. All technical substance stay. Only fluff die.
+
+## Persistence
+
+ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once triggered. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+
+## Rules
+
+Drop: articles (a/an/the), filler (just/really/basically/actually/simply), pleasantries (sure/certainly/of course/happy to), hedging. Fragments OK. Short synonyms (big not extensive, fix not "implement a solution for"). Abbreviate common terms (DB/auth/config/req/res/fn/impl). Strip conjunctions. Use arrows for causality (X -> Y). One word when one word enough.
+
+Technical terms stay exact. Code blocks unchanged. Errors quoted exact.
+
+Pattern: `[thing] [action] [reason]. [next step].`
+
+Not: "Sure! I'd be happy to help you with that. The issue you're experiencing is likely caused by..."
+Yes: "Bug in auth middleware. Token expiry check use `<` not `<=`. Fix:"
+
+### Examples
+
+**"Why React component re-render?"**
+
+> Inline obj prop -> new ref -> re-render. `useMemo`.
+
+**"Explain database connection pooling."**
+
+> Pool = reuse DB conn. Skip handshake -> fast under load.
+
+## Auto-Clarity Exception
+
+Drop caveman temporarily for: security warnings, irreversible action confirmations, multi-step sequences where fragment order risks misread, user asks to clarify or repeats question. Resume caveman after clear part done.
+
+Example -- destructive op:
+
+> **Warning:** This will permanently delete all rows in the `users` table and cannot be undone.
+>
+> ```sql
+> DROP TABLE users;
+> ```
+>
+> Caveman resume. Verify backup exist first.

domain-model/ADR-FORMAT.md

@@ -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.

domain-model/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md

@@ -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 customer's request to purchase one or more items.
+_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.

domain-model/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+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).
+
+### 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).

github-triage/SKILL.md

@@ -7,6 +7,14 @@ description: Triage GitHub issues through a label-based state machine with inter
 
 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
@@ -108,25 +116,10 @@ The reproduction attempt informs the grilling session and the agent brief. A con
 
 ### Step 4: Grilling 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. Follow the /grill-me pattern:
-
-- Ask questions one at a time
-- Provide a recommended answer for each question
-- If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead
-- If there are prior triage notes on this issue, resume from where you left off — never re-ask questions that were already resolved
-- For bugs: use the reproduction findings to ask targeted questions ("I confirmed this happens because X — should the fix be Y or Z?")
-
-The goal is to reach a point where you can write a complete agent brief. Keep going until you have:
-
-- A clear summary of the desired behavior
-- Concrete acceptance criteria
-- Key interfaces that may need to change
-- A clear boundary of what's out of scope
+If the issue needs to be fleshed out before it's ready for an agent, interview the maintainer to build a complete specification.
 
 ### Step 5: Apply the outcome
 
-Before posting any comment or applying any label, show the maintainer a **preview** of exactly what will be posted and which labels will be applied/removed. Only proceed on confirmation.
-
 Depending on the outcome:
 
 - **ready-for-agent** — post an agent brief comment (see [AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md))

prd-to-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -1,107 +0,0 @@
----
-name: prd-to-plan
-description: Turn a PRD into a multi-phase implementation plan using tracer-bullet vertical slices, saved as a local Markdown file in ./plans/. Use when user wants to break down a PRD, create an implementation plan, plan phases from a PRD, or mentions "tracer bullets".
----
-
-# PRD to Plan
-
-Break a PRD into a phased implementation plan using vertical slices (tracer bullets). Output is a Markdown file in `./plans/`.
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Confirm the PRD is in context
-
-The PRD should already be in the conversation. If it isn't, ask the user to paste it or point you to the file.
-
-### 2. Explore the codebase
-
-If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current architecture, existing patterns, and integration layers.
-
-### 3. Identify durable architectural decisions
-
-Before slicing, identify high-level decisions that are unlikely to change throughout implementation:
-
-- Route structures / URL patterns
-- Database schema shape
-- Key data models
-- Authentication / authorization approach
-- Third-party service boundaries
-
-These go in the plan header so every phase can reference them.
-
-### 4. Draft vertical slices
-
-Break the PRD into **tracer bullet** phases. Each phase is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
-
-<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
-- Do NOT include specific file names, function names, or implementation details that are likely to change as later phases are built
-- DO include durable decisions: route paths, schema shapes, data model names
-</vertical-slice-rules>
-
-### 5. Quiz the user
-
-Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each phase show:
-
-- **Title**: short descriptive name
-- **User stories covered**: which user stories from the PRD this addresses
-
-Ask the user:
-
-- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
-- Should any phases be merged or split further?
-
-Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
-
-### 6. Write the plan file
-
-Create `./plans/` if it doesn't exist. Write the plan as a Markdown file named after the feature (e.g. `./plans/user-onboarding.md`). Use the template below.
-
-<plan-template>
-# Plan: <Feature Name>
-
-> Source PRD: <brief identifier or link>
-
-## Architectural decisions
-
-Durable decisions that apply across all phases:
-
-- **Routes**: ...
-- **Schema**: ...
-- **Key models**: ...
-- (add/remove sections as appropriate)
-
----
-
-## Phase 1: <Title>
-
-**User stories**: <list from PRD>
-
-### 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
-
----
-
-## Phase 2: <Title>
-
-**User stories**: <list from PRD>
-
-### What to build
-
-...
-
-### Acceptance criteria
-
-- [ ] ...
-
-<!-- Repeat for each phase -->
-</plan-template>

to-issues/SKILL.md

@@ -1,19 +1,17 @@
 ---
-name: prd-to-issues
-description: Break a PRD into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a PRD to issues, create implementation tickets, or break down a PRD into work items.
+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.
 ---
 
-# PRD to Issues
+# To Issues
 
-Break a PRD into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
+Break a plan into independently-grabbable GitHub issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
 
 ## Process
 
-### 1. Locate the PRD
+### 1. Gather context
 
-Ask the user for the PRD GitHub issue number (or URL).
-
-If the PRD is not already in your context window, fetch it with `gh issue view <number>` (with comments).
+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)
 
@@ -21,7 +19,7 @@ If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current s
 
 ### 3. Draft vertical slices
 
-Break the PRD 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.
+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.
 
@@ -38,7 +36,7 @@ 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 from the PRD this addresses
+- **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them)
 
 Ask the user:
 
@@ -56,13 +54,13 @@ For each approved slice, create a GitHub issue using `gh issue create`. Use the
 Create issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue numbers in the "Blocked by" field.
 
 <issue-template>
-## Parent PRD
+## Parent
 
-#<prd-issue-number>
+#<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. Reference specific sections of the parent PRD rather than duplicating content.
+A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.
 
 ## Acceptance criteria
 
@@ -76,13 +74,6 @@ A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior,
 
 Or "None - can start immediately" if no blockers.
 
-## User stories addressed
-
-Reference by number from the parent PRD:
-
-- User story 3
-- User story 7
-
 </issue-template>
 
-Do NOT close or modify the parent PRD issue.
+Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.

to-prd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,23 +1,21 @@
 ---
-name: write-a-prd
-description: Create a PRD through user interview, codebase exploration, and module design, then submit as a GitHub issue. Use when user wants to write a PRD, create a product requirements document, or plan a new feature.
+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 will be invoked when the user wants to create a PRD. You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary.
+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.
 
-1. Ask the user for a long, detailed description of the problem they want to solve and any potential ideas for solutions.
+## Process
 
-2. Explore the repo to verify their assertions and understand the current state of the codebase.
+1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already.
 
-3. Interview the user relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until you reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one.
-
-4. 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.
+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.
 
-5. Once you have a complete understanding of the problem and solution, use the template below to write the PRD. The PRD should be submitted as a GitHub issue.
+3. Write the PRD using the template below and submit it as a GitHub issue.
 
 <prd-template>
 

zoom-out/SKILL.md

@@ -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.