improve-codebase-architecture: scope the scan to where change is landing (YAGNI)

Before scanning, decide where to look. If the user named a direction, take
it; otherwise read the last ~20 commit messages to bias exploration toward
actively-developed paths. A deepening opportunity in code nobody touches is a
refactor you'll never cash in — leverage only pays off where you keep editing.

Syncs the docs page and adds a changeset.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.changeset/prototype-primary-source.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Reword how the **`prototype`** skill handles its artifacts around a single idea: **the prototype is a primary source**. Rather than being deleted once it's answered its question, the prototype is captured as runnable evidence on a throwaway branch (`prototype/<name>`) out of main, with a context pointer to it left on the implementation issue — so the main branch keeps only the validated decision while the exploration stays findable. The answer (verdict + question) is still captured durably in an issue/ADR/commit.

.changeset/yagni-scope-improve-architecture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Add a YAGNI scoping filter to the **`improve-codebase-architecture`** skill's Explore step. Instead of scanning the whole repo evenly, it now scopes to where change is actually landing: if you name a direction it takes it, otherwise it reads the last ~20 commit messages to bias exploration toward actively-developed paths. A deepening opportunity in code nobody touches is a refactor you'll never cash in — the leverage only pays off where you keep editing — so the report stops tidying dormant corners of the repo.

docs/engineering/improve-codebase-architecture.md

@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ npx skills update improve-codebase-architecture
 
 It does **not** hand you a flat list of refactors. Every candidate has to pass the **deletion test** — would removing this module *concentrate* complexity behind a smaller interface, or just move it around? Only the "concentrates" cases earn a card. That filter is what stops the report from becoming generic cleanup advice.
 
+Unless you point it at a specific area, it also scopes itself to where development is actually landing — reading the recent commits to bias toward the code you're still changing. Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so it puts extra weight on the parts of the repo that have recently changed.
+
 ## When to reach for it
 
 You invoke this by typing `/improve-codebase-architecture` — the agent won't reach for it on its own.

docs/engineering/prototype.md

@@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ The question decides the shape, and there are two shapes:
 
 Picking the wrong branch wastes the whole prototype, so the question comes first. Both branches keep state in memory, run from one command, and surface the full state on every step.
 
-## The answer is the artifact
+## Keep the prototype as a primary source
 
-The code is disposable; the **answer** is the only thing worth keeping. When the prototype has settled its question, capture the verdict somewhere durable — a commit message, an ADR, an issue, or a `NOTES.md` next to it — alongside the question it answered, then delete or absorb the code. A prototype left rotting in the repo has outlived its purpose.
+A finished prototype leaves two things. The **answer** — the verdict plus the question it settled — is what you capture durably (a commit message, an ADR, an issue). The **prototype itself is a primary source** — the runnable evidence the answer came from.
+
+The prototype doesn't belong in the main branch: no tests, no error handling, nothing to maintain. But that's not a reason to destroy it. Once the answer is captured, fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype on a throwaway branch — out of main, never merged — and leave a context pointer to it on the implementation issue. The main branch stays clean; the raw exploration stays one click away for anyone who wants to re-run it. A prototype left rotting in the main branch has outlived its purpose — a prototype captured as a primary source on a side branch hasn't.
 
 ## Where it fits
 

skills/engineering/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -17,6 +17,11 @@ This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared d
 
 ### 1. Explore
 
+**Scope before you scan — YAGNI.** Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so put extra weight on the parts of the codebase that have recently changed. Decide *where* to look before you look:
+
+- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.
+- Otherwise, walk back a good stretch of the commit history (`git log --oneline`) to find the codebase's hot spots — the files and areas that keep coming up — and let those paths pull your attention first. If the changes are scattered with no clear hot spot, widen the net.
+
 Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
 
 Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:

skills/engineering/prototype/LOGIC.md

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ The right shape depends on the question:
 
 Pick whichever shape best fits the question being asked, *not* whichever is easiest to wire to a TUI. Keep it pure: no I/O, no terminal code, no `console.log` for control flow. The TUI imports it and calls into it; nothing flows the other direction.
 
-This is what makes the prototype useful past its own lifetime. When the question's been answered, the validated reducer / machine / function set can be lifted into the real module — the TUI shell gets deleted.
+This is what makes the prototype useful past its own lifetime: when the question's been answered, the validated reducer / machine / function set can be lifted into the real module on its own.
 
 ### 4. Build the smallest TUI that exposes the state
 
@@ -66,9 +66,9 @@ If the host project has no task runner, just put the command at the top of the p
 
 Give the user the run command. They'll drive it themselves; the interesting moments are when they say "wait, that shouldn't be possible" or "huh, I assumed X would be different" — those are the bugs in the _idea_, which is the whole point. If they want new actions added, add them. Prototypes evolve.
 
-### 7. Capture the answer
+### 7. Capture the answer and the prototype
 
-When the prototype has done its job, the answer to the question is the only thing worth keeping. If the user is around, ask what it taught them. If not, leave a `NOTES.md` next to the prototype so the answer can be filled in (or filled in by you, if you've watched the session) before the prototype gets deleted.
+Once the prototype has answered its question, capture the answer, then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. The logic-specific mapping: the validated reducer / machine / function set lifts into the real module (the decision, absorbed); the TUI shell rides along to the throwaway branch that keeps the prototype as a primary source.
 
 ## Anti-patterns
 

skills/engineering/prototype/SKILL.md

@@ -21,10 +21,6 @@ The two branches produce very different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes
 1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious — but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.
 2. **One command to run.** Whatever the project's existing task runner supports — `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. The user must be able to start it without thinking.
 3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE — wipe me" name.
-4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast and then delete it.
+4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.
 5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.
-6. **Delete or absorb when done.** When the prototype has answered its question, either delete it or fold the validated decision into the real code — don't leave it rotting in the repo.
-
-## When done
-
-The _answer_ is the only thing worth keeping from a prototype. Capture it somewhere durable (commit message, ADR, issue, or a `NOTES.md` next to the prototype) along with the question it was answering. If the user is around, that capture is a quick conversation; if not, leave the placeholder so they (or you, on the next pass) can fill in the verdict before deleting the prototype.
+6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too — the verdict and the question it settled — in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.

skills/engineering/prototype/UI.md

@@ -97,12 +97,12 @@ Surface the URL (and the `?variant=` keys). The user will flip through whenever
 
 ### 6. Capture the answer and clean up
 
-Once a variant has won, write down which one and why (commit message, ADR, issue, or a `NOTES.md` next to the prototype if running AFK and the user hasn't responded yet). Then:
+Once a variant has won, capture the answer — which variant and why — then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. Fold the winner into the real code and move the rest onto the throwaway branch, not into main:
 
-- **Sub-shape A** — delete the losing variants and the switcher; fold the winner into the existing page.
-- **Sub-shape B** — promote the winning variant to a real route, delete the throwaway route and the switcher.
+- **Sub-shape A** — fold the winner into the existing page; drop the losing variants and the switcher from main.
+- **Sub-shape B** — promote the winning variant to a real route; drop the throwaway route and the switcher from main.
 
-Don't leave variant components or the switcher lying around. They rot fast and confuse the next reader.
+The full set of variants is the primary source, so it lands on the throwaway branch, not the bin — variant components and the switcher left in the main branch rot fast and confuse the next reader.
 
 ## Anti-patterns