Add minor changeset for grilling gate and leading word

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

.agents/writing-docs.md

@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ Optional. A short, checkable list of the observable signals that tell the reader
 
 Always present. Situate the skill in the system in a sentence or two:
 
-- **Role.** Name it: a **chain step** (`grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → tdd`), a **run-once setup** (`setup-matt-pocock-skills`), **periodic maintenance** (`improve-codebase-architecture`, "every few days"), or a **reach-for-it-anytime standalone** (`diagnosing-bugs`, `prototype`, `handoff`). A standalone's map is one honest sentence — far better than omitting the section.
+- **Role.** Name it: a **chain step** (`grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review`), a **run-once setup** (`setup-matt-pocock-skills`), **periodic maintenance** (`improve-codebase-architecture`, "every few days"), or a **reach-for-it-anytime standalone** (`diagnosing-bugs`, `prototype`, `handoff`). A standalone's map is one honest sentence — far better than omitting the section.
 - **Neighbours.** The one or two siblings that matter, each with a because-clause, linked absolutely.
 - **The map.** Point to [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt), the router over the whole set, so this page stays a node and never has to redraw the graph.
 

.changeset/ask-matt-full-skill-map.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Bring the **`ask-matt`** router up to date with the full skill set. It now maps five skills it was missing: **`tdd`** (woven into the main flow as the red-green engine `implement` drives), **`diagnosing-bugs`** (a new "Something's broken" on-ramp — there was previously no route for a bug), **`domain-modeling`** and **`codebase-design`** (a new "Vocabulary underneath" section), and **`grilling`** (the shared interview primitive). `prototype` is fleshed out as a standalone and the description broadens from "user-invoked skills" to "the skills". A maintenance rule is added to `CLAUDE.md` so any future skill add/rename/remove or flow change triggers an `ask-matt` re-check, beside the existing docs-page re-sync rule.

.changeset/code-review-promote.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Rename the in-progress **`review`** skill to **`code-review`** and promote it from `in-progress/` to the `engineering/` bucket. It now ships in the plugin, is listed in the top-level and Engineering READMEs (Model-invoked), and has a human-facing docs page at `docs/engineering/code-review.md`. The `/implement` skill and docs now point at `/code-review`.

.changeset/grilling-gate-and-leading-word.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Add a confirmation gate to **`grilling`**: the agent won't enact the plan until you confirm the shared understanding has been reached, turning the skill's existing "shared understanding" completion criterion into an explicit stop-gate. The `description` also recruits the pretrained **`grill`** leading word ("Grill the user relentlessly") to sharpen invocation, and the docs page is re-synced with the new gate behaviour.

.changeset/research-skill.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Add the **`research`** skill — a small, model-invoked skill that spins up a **background agent** to investigate a question against **primary sources** (official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs), then leaves a single cited Markdown file wherever the repo keeps such notes. It's delegable reading legwork: you keep working while it reads, and get back a document to grill, plan, or design against. Listed in the top-level and Engineering READMEs (Model-invoked), added to `.claude-plugin/plugin.json`, given a docs page at `docs/engineering/research.md`, and routed as a Standalone in `ask-matt`.

.changeset/review-smell-baseline.md

@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@
 "mattpocock-skills": patch
 ---
 
-Give the in-progress **`review`** skill an always-on Fowler smell baseline on its Standards axis. A curated ~12 high-signal "Bad Smells in Code" (Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession, Repeated Switches, Shotgun Surgery, Divergent Change, Speculative Generality, Message Chains, Middle Man, Refused Bequest) are inlined into `SKILL.md` as a fixed baseline alongside whatever the repo documents — not a new third axis. Two binding rules keep it safe: a documented repo standard overrides the baseline, and every smell is reported as a judgement call, never a hard violation.
+Give the in-progress **`code-review`** skill an always-on Fowler smell baseline on its Standards axis. A curated ~12 high-signal "Bad Smells in Code" (Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession, Repeated Switches, Shotgun Surgery, Divergent Change, Speculative Generality, Message Chains, Middle Man, Refused Bequest) are inlined into `SKILL.md` as a fixed baseline alongside whatever the repo documents — not a new third axis. Two binding rules keep it safe: a documented repo standard overrides the baseline, and every smell is reported as a judgement call, never a hard violation.

.changeset/tdd-reference-only-seams.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": patch
+---
+
+Reshape the `tdd` skill into reference-only. The red → green → refactor loop is anchored by leading words the model already holds, so the step-by-step Workflow was largely restating the loop and duplicating the horizontal-slicing anti-pattern. Dropped the Workflow and per-cycle checklist; folded their one durable idea — vertical slices / tracer bullets — into the Anti-patterns section and a short Rules-of-the-loop list. Introduced **seam** as the leading word for where tests go, collapsing the old Philosophy "public interfaces" prose and the Planning "confirm interface / behaviors" handshake into one rule: test only at pre-agreed seams, confirmed with the user before any test is written.
+
+Also dropped the refactor stage — TDD is now red → green, not red → green → refactor. Refactoring belongs to the review stage, not the implementation loop, so the refactor rule and `refactoring.md` were removed (its home is the `review` skill).

.changeset/wayfinder-collaborative-tracker.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Make **`wayfinder`** collaborative by moving the map off a local Markdown file and onto the repo's issue tracker.
+
+The map is now a single `wayfinder:map` issue whose tickets are its child issues — one shared URL the whole team can watch and comment on. Blocking, claiming (`wayfinder:claimed`), and the frontier query all use native tracker semantics, so a session loads the map at low resolution (Notes + one context pointer per closed ticket + Fog prose) and zooms into individual tickets on demand, instead of loading the whole map every time.
+
+Wayfinder stays tracker-agnostic: the per-tracker mechanics live behind a pointer in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`, so `setup-matt-pocock-skills` now seeds a "Wayfinding operations" section for GitHub, GitLab, and local-markdown. Absent that doc, Wayfinder defaults to local-markdown.

.changeset/wayfinder-map-index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Make **`wayfinder`**'s no-duplication contract explicit: the map is an **index**, not a store.
+
+Adopting "index" as the leading word for the map's role fixes two duplication risks. The map now states up front that a decision lives in exactly one place — its ticket — so it only ever gists and links, never restates the answer (previously this rule was implied inside an HTML comment in the map-body template). And graduating fog into a ticket now clears the graduated patch from the Fog, so a suspected question can't linger in both places at once.

.changeset/wayfinder-plan-big-work.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Reframe **`wayfinder`**'s description around the work it's for: planning a huge chunk of work, more than one agent session can hold.
+
+The description does the skill's invocation work, so it now leads with the trigger that actually reaches for Wayfinder — a big effort you need to break down — instead of the softer "chart a route through a foggy problem". The skill body and fog-of-war mechanic are unchanged.

.changeset/wayfinding-rename.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+---
+"mattpocock-skills": minor
+---
+
+Rename the **`decision-mapping`** skill to **`wayfinder`**, invoked as `/wayfinder`.
+
+"Decision map" was jargony and inaccurate — only one of the skill's four ticket types (Grilling) is actually a decision. The reframe charts a route through a foggy problem, resolving investigation tickets one at a time until the way to the goal is clear. This makes one coherent leading-word frame (fog of war / frontier / the map) instead of mixing an invented term on top of it.
+
+Also a pruning pass: unified `node`→`ticket`, bound "the frontier" to the unblocked tickets, dropped the duplicated "one question at a time" (owned by `/grilling`), and trimmed intro no-ops.

.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -10,9 +10,12 @@
     "./skills/engineering/tdd",
     "./skills/engineering/to-issues",
     "./skills/engineering/to-prd",
+    "./skills/engineering/implement",
     "./skills/engineering/prototype",
+    "./skills/engineering/research",
     "./skills/engineering/domain-modeling",
     "./skills/engineering/codebase-design",
+    "./skills/engineering/code-review",
     "./skills/productivity/grill-me",
     "./skills/productivity/grilling",
     "./skills/productivity/handoff",

CLAUDE.md

@@ -17,4 +17,6 @@ Skills in `engineering/` and `productivity/` also have a human-facing docs page
 
 Every `SKILL.md` is either user-invoked (`disable-model-invocation: true`, reachable only by the human) or model-invoked (model- or user-reachable). See [.agents/invocation.md](./.agents/invocation.md).
 
+[`ask-matt`](./skills/engineering/ask-matt/SKILL.md) is the router that maps every user-reachable skill and how they relate. The same trigger that re-syncs a docs page applies to it: whenever you add, rename, remove, or change how a user-reachable skill fits the flows, re-read `ask-matt`'s `SKILL.md` and update it so the map stays accurate — a new skill it never mentions, or a stale one it still routes to, is a router that lies.
+
 To (re)link every skill into the local harness skill directories (`~/.claude/skills`, `~/.agents/skills`), run `scripts/link-skills.sh`. Each entry is a symlink into this repo, so a `git pull` keeps installed skills current; re-run the script after adding, removing, or renaming a skill.

README.md

@@ -161,9 +161,11 @@ Skills I use daily for code work.
 
 - **[prototype](./skills/engineering/prototype/SKILL.md)** — Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question — a runnable terminal app for state/logic questions, or several radically different UI variations toggleable from one route.
 - **[diagnosing-bugs](./skills/engineering/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md)** — Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions: reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test.
+- **[research](./skills/engineering/research/SKILL.md)** — Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a cited Markdown file in the repo, run as a background agent.
 - **[tdd](./skills/engineering/tdd/SKILL.md)** — Test-driven development with a red-green-refactor loop. Builds features or fixes bugs one vertical slice at a time.
 - **[domain-modeling](./skills/engineering/domain-modeling/SKILL.md)** — Actively build and sharpen a project's domain model — challenge terms against the glossary, stress-test with edge-case scenarios, and update `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs inline.
 - **[codebase-design](./skills/engineering/codebase-design/SKILL.md)** — Shared discipline and vocabulary for designing deep modules: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface.
+- **[code-review](./skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md)** — Two-axis review of the diff since a fixed point: **Standards** (does it follow the repo's coding standards, plus a Fowler smell baseline?) and **Spec** (does it faithfully implement the originating issue/PRD?), run as parallel sub-agents so neither pollutes the other.
 
 ### Productivity
 

docs/engineering/ask-matt.md

@@ -12,9 +12,9 @@ npx skills update ask-matt
 
 ## What it does
 
-`ask-matt` is the router over every user-invoked skill in this repo. You describe the situation you're in; it tells you which skill or flow fits and in what order to run them.
+`ask-matt` is the router over the skills in this repo. You describe the situation you're in; it tells you which skill or flow fits and in what order to run them.
 
-It **does no work itself**. It doesn't grill, write a PRD, or fix anything — it only orients. Because these skills are user-invoked, nothing fires them for you, so *you* have to remember they exist; `ask-matt` is the memory you offload that to. It answers "which one, and when", then hands you off to the skill that actually does the job.
+It **does no work itself**. It doesn't grill, write a PRD, or fix anything — it only orients. It exists for the **user-invoked** skills above all: nothing fires those for you, so *you* have to remember they exist, and `ask-matt` is the memory you offload that to. It also points at the model-invoked skills you'd reach for by name — `/tdd`, `/diagnosing-bugs`, `/prototype`, `/code-review`, and the two vocabulary references, `/domain-modeling` and `/codebase-design`. It answers "which one, and when", then hands you off to the skill that actually does the job.
 
 ## When to reach for it
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Reach for it whenever you're unsure which skill or flow a situation calls for: y
 
 ## Flows, not just skills
 
-The idea `ask-matt` gives you to think with is the **flow** — a path *through* the skills rather than a single one. Most work runs along one **main flow** (idea → ship: grill → PRD → issues → implement), two **on-ramps** merge onto it (a triage lane for incoming bugs and requests; a codebase-health lane that generates ideas), and everything else is a **standalone** you reach for on its own. Ask a question and you get placed on the right flow, at the right step — not just handed a tool.
+The idea `ask-matt` gives you to think with is the **flow** — a path *through* the skills rather than a single one. Most work runs along one **main flow** (idea → ship: grill → PRD → issues → implement → review), two **on-ramps** merge onto it (a triage lane for incoming bugs and requests; a codebase-health lane that generates ideas), and everything else is a **standalone** you reach for on its own. Ask a question and you get placed on the right flow, at the right step — not just handed a tool.
 
 ## Where it fits
 

docs/engineering/code-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Quickstart:
+
+```bash
+npx skills add mattpocock/skills --skill=code-review
+```
+
+```bash
+npx skills update code-review
+```
+
+[Source](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/engineering/code-review)
+
+## What it does
+
+`code-review` reviews the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point you supply — a commit, branch, tag, or merge-base — along two separate axes: **Standards** (does the code follow this repo's documented conventions?) and **Spec** (does it implement what the originating issue or PRD asked for?). It runs each axis as its own parallel sub-agent and reports them side by side. It never merges or re-ranks the two sets of findings — keeping them separate is the whole point, because a change can pass one axis and fail the other, and a single blended verdict lets one mask the other.
+
+## When to reach for it
+
+Type `/code-review`, or the agent reaches for it automatically when you ask to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or anything "since X".
+
+Reach for this when there is a diff to judge against a known-good point and you want the two questions — *is it built right?* and *is it the right thing?* — answered independently. It runs at the end of the build loop; for actually writing the code test-first, use [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd), and for building a whole spec into code use [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement), which runs its own `/code-review` pass before committing.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+The **Spec** axis needs somewhere to find the originating spec — an issue reference in the commit messages, a path you pass in, or a PRD under `docs/`/`specs/`. That issue-tracker wiring comes from [setup-matt-pocock-skills](https://aihero.dev/skills-setup-matt-pocock-skills); without a spec the Spec axis simply skips and says so. The **Standards** axis needs nothing set up — it always carries a built-in Fowler smell baseline even in a repo that documents no conventions.
+
+## Two axes, never merged
+
+The defining idea is the **two axes**. **Standards** asks whether the diff conforms to how this repo writes code — its `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`, plus a fixed baseline of ~12 Fowler code smells (Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, …). Two rules keep the baseline safe: a documented repo standard always overrides it, and every smell is a judgement call, never a hard violation. **Spec** asks the orthogonal question — does the code do what the issue or PRD actually asked, without missing requirements or smuggling in scope creep?
+
+They run as parallel sub-agents so neither pollutes the other's context, and the final report presents them under separate `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings with a per-axis summary. There is deliberately no single winner across axes.
+
+## It's working if
+
+- It pins and confirms the fixed point first (`git rev-parse`), failing fast on a bad ref or empty diff rather than inside the sub-agents.
+- Standards and Spec findings arrive in two distinct blocks, each citing its source — a repo standard or baseline smell for one, a quoted spec line for the other.
+- When no spec can be found, the Spec axis reports "no spec available" instead of inventing requirements.
+
+## Where it fits
+
+`code-review` is the review step at the tail of the main build chain:
+
+```txt
+grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review
+```
+
+Its closest neighbour is [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement), which drives the build and calls this as its own review pass before committing; upstream, the spec it checks against is produced by [to-prd](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-prd) and [to-issues](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-issues). When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.

docs/engineering/grill-with-docs.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ What makes this variant its own skill is where the answers go. As the grill runs
 `grill-with-docs` is the opening step of the main build chain:
 
 ```txt
-grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → tdd
+grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review
 ```
 
 It comes first, before anything is written down as a spec: it produces the shared understanding and settled vocabulary that [to-prd](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-prd) then synthesises into a PRD without re-interviewing you. Its close neighbours are [grilling](https://aihero.dev/skills-grilling), the same interview without the docs, and [domain-modeling](https://aihero.dev/skills-domain-modeling), the glossary-and-ADR discipline it drives. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.

docs/engineering/implement.md

@@ -30,10 +30,10 @@ Around that core it keeps the loop tight — typecheck often, run single test fi
 
 ## Where it fits
 
-`implement` is the build step at the end of the main chain:
+`implement` is the build step near the end of the main chain, just before the review:
 
 ```txt
-grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement
+grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review
 ```
 
-Reach for it after the work has been specced and sequenced, not before. Its key neighbours are [to-issues](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-issues), which produces the independently-grabbable tickets it works through, and [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd), which it drives internally to write the tests at each seam before running its own `/review` pass and committing. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.
+Reach for it after the work has been specced and sequenced, not before. Its key neighbours are [to-issues](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-issues), which produces the independently-grabbable tickets it works through, and [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd), which it drives internally to write the tests at each seam before running its own [code-review](https://aihero.dev/skills-code-review) pass and committing. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.

docs/engineering/research.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Quickstart:
+
+```bash
+npx skills add mattpocock/skills --skill=research
+```
+
+```bash
+npx skills update research
+```
+
+[Source](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/engineering/research)
+
+## What it does
+
+`research` answers a question by reading the sources that own the answer and leaving a cited Markdown file behind. It works only from **primary sources** — official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs — never a secondary write-up of them, so what it saves is traceable back to something authoritative rather than a summary of a summary.
+
+## When to reach for it
+
+Type `/research`, or the agent reaches for it automatically when a task turns into reading legwork.
+
+Reach for it when the next step is *finding something out* — how an API behaves, what a spec actually says, whether a claim holds — and you'd rather not stall your own thread doing the reading. For sharpening a plan by interview instead of by reading, use [grilling](https://aihero.dev/skills-grilling); for exploring what to build with throwaway code, use [prototype](https://aihero.dev/skills-prototype).
+
+## Delegated legwork
+
+The defining move is that the reading runs as a **background agent**. You keep working; it goes off, follows each claim back to its primary source, and drops a single cited Markdown file into wherever the repo keeps such notes. Research is legwork you delegate, not thinking you outsource — you get back a document to react to, with its sources attached.
+
+## Where it fits
+
+A reach-for-it-anytime standalone that feeds the thinking skills: the file it produces is something to grill, plan, or design against, so it sits upstream of work like [grilling](https://aihero.dev/skills-grilling) and [to-prd](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-prd) rather than in the build chain. For the whole map, see [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt).

docs/engineering/tdd.md

@@ -38,10 +38,10 @@ Refactoring only happens once the suite is green; never while red.
 
 ## Where it fits
 
-`tdd` is the final step of the main build chain:
+`tdd` is the red-green loop the main build chain runs to write code:
 
 ```txt
-grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → tdd
+grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review
 ```
 
-It implements the tickets the earlier steps produced. Its key neighbours are [to-issues](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-issues), which hands it an independently-grabbable issue to build, and [codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design), which it leans on to find deep-module seams worth testing at. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.
+[implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement) is the chain's build step, and it drives `tdd` internally to build each ticket test-first before handing off to [code-review](https://aihero.dev/skills-code-review) — so `tdd` is the engine inside that step rather than a step of its own. You can also reach for it directly, whenever there's a concrete behaviour to build without a full spec. Its other neighbour is [codebase-design](https://aihero.dev/skills-codebase-design), which it leans on to find deep-module seams worth testing at. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.

docs/engineering/to-issues.md

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Before slicing, `to-issues` looks for prefactoring — "make the change easy, th
 `to-issues` is a step in the main build chain:
 
 ```txt
-grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → tdd
+grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review
 ```
 
-It sits between [to-prd](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-prd), which hands it a settled spec with user stories to slice against, and [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd), which implements each independently-grabbable issue test-first. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.
+It sits between [to-prd](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-prd), which hands it a settled spec with user stories to slice against, and [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement), which builds each independently-grabbable issue, driving [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd) internally to write the tests test-first, before its [code-review](https://aihero.dev/skills-code-review) pass. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.

docs/engineering/to-prd.md

@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ That matters for agentic development: a good interface gives tests something dur
 `to-prd` is a step in the main build chain:
 
 ```txt
-grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → tdd
+grill-with-docs → to-prd → to-issues → implement → code-review
 ```
 
-Reach for it after the plan and domain language are resolved, and before you break the work into implementation tickets. Its key neighbours are [grill-with-docs](https://aihero.dev/skills-grill-with-docs), which sharpens the context so the PRD is precise, and [to-issues](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-issues), which turns the PRD into independently-grabbable issues for [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd) to implement. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.
+Reach for it after the plan and domain language are resolved, and before you break the work into implementation tickets. Its key neighbours are [grill-with-docs](https://aihero.dev/skills-grill-with-docs), which sharpens the context so the PRD is precise, and [to-issues](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-issues), which turns the PRD into independently-grabbable issues for [implement](https://aihero.dev/skills-implement) to build. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.

docs/productivity/grilling.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ npx skills update grilling
 
 `grilling` is the relentless interview that stress-tests a plan or design before you build it. It walks down the design tree branch by branch, resolving the dependencies between decisions one at a time until you and the agent share the same understanding.
 
-It asks **one question at a time** and waits for your answer before the next — never a bulk list, which is bewildering. Each question comes with the agent's own recommended answer, and any question the codebase can settle it explores instead of asking you.
+It asks **one question at a time** and waits for your answer before the next — never a bulk list, which is bewildering. Each question comes with the agent's own recommended answer, and any question the codebase can settle it explores instead of asking you. It won't start enacting the plan until you confirm the shared understanding has been reached.
 
 ## When to reach for it
 

skills/engineering/README.md

@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ Model- or user-reachable (rich trigger phrasing so the model can reach for them)
 - **[prototype](./prototype/SKILL.md)** — Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question: a runnable terminal app for state/logic, or several toggleable UI variations.
 
 - **[diagnosing-bugs](./diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md)** — Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions: reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test.
+- **[research](./research/SKILL.md)** — Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a cited Markdown file in the repo, run as a background agent.
 - **[tdd](./tdd/SKILL.md)** — Test-driven development with a red-green-refactor loop. Builds features or fixes bugs one vertical slice at a time.
 - **[domain-modeling](./domain-modeling/SKILL.md)** — Actively build and sharpen a project's domain model — challenge terms, stress-test with scenarios, update `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs inline.
 - **[codebase-design](./codebase-design/SKILL.md)** — Shared discipline and vocabulary for designing deep modules: small interfaces, clean seams, testable through the interface.
+- **[code-review](./code-review/SKILL.md)** — Two-axis review of the diff since a fixed point: **Standards** (does it follow the repo's coding standards, plus a Fowler smell baseline?) and **Spec** (does it faithfully implement the originating issue/PRD?), run as parallel sub-agents.

skills/engineering/ask-matt/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: ask-matt
-description: Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the user-invoked skills in this repo.
+description: Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
 disable-model-invocation: true
 ---
 
@@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ disable-model-invocation: true
 
 You don't remember every skill, so ask.
 
-A **flow** is a path through the skills. Most paths run along one **main flow**, and two **on-ramps** merge onto it. Everything else is standalone.
+A **flow** is a path through the skills. Most paths run along one **main flow**, and two **on-ramps** merge onto it. Everything else is standalone, or a vocabulary layer that runs underneath.
 
 ## The main flow: idea → ship
 
 The route most work travels. You have an idea and want it built.
 
-1. **`/grill-with-docs`** — sharpen the idea by interview. Start here when you **have a codebase**: it's stateful, retaining what it learns in `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs. (No codebase? Use `/grill-me` — see Standalone.)
+1. **`/grill-with-docs`** — sharpen the idea by interview. Start here when you **have a codebase**: it's stateful, retaining what it learns in `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs. (No codebase? Use `/grill-me` — see Standalone. Both run the same `/grilling` primitive; `grill-with-docs` is the one that leaves a paper trail.)
 2. **Branch — can you settle every question in conversation?** If a question needs a runnable answer (state, business logic, a UI you have to see), detour through a prototype, bridged by **`/handoff`** in both directions (see Crossing sessions):
    - **`/handoff`** out, then open a fresh session against that file,
    - **`/prototype`** to answer the question with throwaway code,
@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ The route most work travels. You have an idea and want it built.
    - **Yes** → **`/to-prd`** (turn the thread into a PRD) → **`/to-issues`** (split the PRD into independently-grabbable issues). Because the issues are independent, **clear context between each one**: start a fresh session per issue and kick off **`/implement`** by passing it the PRD and the single issue to work on.
    - **No** → **`/implement`** right here, in the same context window.
 
+   Either way, **`/implement`** builds each issue by driving **`/tdd`** internally — one red-green slice at a time — then closes out by running **`/code-review`**, a two-axis review (Standards + Spec) of the diff, before committing. Reach for **`/tdd`** on its own when you just want to build a concrete behaviour test-first without a full spec, and **`/code-review`** on its own whenever you want to review a branch or PR against a fixed point.
+
 ### Context hygiene
 
 Keep steps 1–3 in **one unbroken context window** — don't compact or clear until after `/to-issues` — so the grilling, PRD, and issues all build on the same thinking. Each `/implement` then starts fresh, working from the issue.
@@ -37,11 +39,20 @@ A starting situation that generates work, then merges onto the main flow.
 
   Triage is only for issues **you didn't create** — bug reports, incoming feature requests, anything that arrives raw. Issues that `/to-issues` produced are already agent-ready, so **don't triage them**.
 
+- **Something's broken** → **`/diagnosing-bugs`**. For the hard ones: the bug that resists a first glance, the intermittent flake, the regression that crept in between two known-good states. It refuses to theorise until it has a **tight feedback loop** — one command that already goes red on *this* bug — then fixes with a regression test. Its post-mortem hands off to **`/improve-codebase-architecture`** when the real finding is that there's no good seam to lock the bug down.
+
 ## Codebase health
 
 Not feature work — upkeep.
 
-- **`/improve-codebase-architecture`** — run whenever you have a spare moment to keep the codebase good for agents to operate in. It surfaces deepening opportunities; picking one _generates an idea_ you can take into the main flow at `/grill-with-docs`.
+- **`/improve-codebase-architecture`** — run whenever you have a spare moment to keep the codebase good for agents to operate in. It surfaces **deepening opportunities**; picking one _generates an idea_ you can take into the main flow at `/grill-with-docs`. It's the survey that finds the candidates; **`/codebase-design`** (below) is the bench you design the chosen one on.
+
+## Vocabulary underneath
+
+Two model-invoked references that run *beneath* the other skills — each the single source of truth for its vocabulary. Reach for them directly when the **words**, not the process, are the problem; or let the skills above pull them in.
+
+- **`/domain-modeling`** — sharpen the project's *domain* language: challenge a fuzzy term, resolve an overloaded word ("account" doing three jobs), record a hard-to-reverse decision as an ADR. It's the active discipline `/grill-with-docs` drives to keep `CONTEXT.md` a clean glossary.
+- **`/codebase-design`** — the deep-module vocabulary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) for designing a module's *shape*: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface at a clean seam. `/tdd` and `/improve-codebase-architecture` both speak it.
 
 ## Crossing sessions
 
@@ -53,6 +64,8 @@ Not feature work — upkeep.
 Off the main flow entirely.
 
 - **`/grill-me`** — the same relentless interview as `/grill-with-docs`, but for when you have **no codebase**. Stateless: it saves nothing locally, builds no `CONTEXT.md`. Reach for it to sharpen any plan or design that doesn't live in a repo.
+- **`/prototype`** — a small, throwaway program that answers one design question: does this state model feel right, or what should this UI look like. Throwaway from day one — keep the answer, delete the code. It's the detour in step 2 of the main flow, but reach for it any time a design question is hard to settle on paper.
+- **`/research`** — delegate reading legwork to a **background agent**: it investigates a question against **primary sources**, then leaves a cited Markdown file in the repo. Keep working while it reads. The file it produces is something to take *into* the main flow at `/grill-with-docs` — research feeds the thinking, it doesn't replace it.
 - **`/teach`** — learn a concept over multiple sessions, using the current directory as a stateful workspace.
 - **`/writing-great-skills`** — reference for writing and editing skills well.
 

skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-name: review
+name: code-review
 description: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
 ---
 

skills/engineering/implement/SKILL.md

@@ -10,6 +10,6 @@ Use /tdd where possible, at pre-agreed seams.
 
 Run typechecking regularly, single test files regularly, and the full test suite once at the end.
 
-Once done, use /review to review the work.
+Once done, use /code-review to review the work.
 
 Commit your work to the current branch.

skills/engineering/research/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+name: research
+description: Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.
+---
+
+Spin up a **background agent** to do the research, so you keep working while it reads.
+
+Its job:
+
+1. Investigate the question against **primary sources** — official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs — not a secondary write-up of them. Follow every claim back to the source that owns it.
+2. Write the findings to a single Markdown file, citing each claim's source.
+3. Save it where the repo already keeps such notes; match the existing convention, and if there is none, put it somewhere sensible and say where.

skills/engineering/setup-matt-pocock-skills/issue-tracker-github.md

@@ -32,3 +32,14 @@ Create a GitHub issue.
 ## When a skill says "fetch the relevant ticket"
 
 Run `gh issue view <number> --comments`.
+
+## Wayfinding operations
+
+Used by `/wayfinder`. The **map** is a single issue with **child** issues as tickets.
+
+- **Map**: a single issue labelled `wayfinder:map`, holding the Notes / Decisions-so-far / Fog body. `gh issue create --label wayfinder:map`.
+- **Child ticket**: an issue linked to the map as a GitHub sub-issue (`gh api` on the sub-issues endpoint). Where sub-issues aren't enabled, add the child to a task list in the map body and put `Part of #<map>` at the top of the child body. Labels: `wayfinder:<type>` (`research`/`prototype`/`grilling`/`task`), plus `wayfinder:claimed` once claimed.
+- **Blocking**: native issue relationships where available; otherwise a `Blocked by: #<n>, #<n>` line at the top of the child body. A ticket is unblocked when every issue it lists is closed.
+- **Frontier query**: list the map's open children (`gh issue list --state open`, scoped to the map's sub-issues / task list), drop any with an open `Blocked by` issue or the `wayfinder:claimed` label; first in map order wins.
+- **Claim**: `gh issue edit <n> --add-label wayfinder:claimed` — the session's first write.
+- **Resolve**: `gh issue comment <n> --body "<answer>"`, then `gh issue close <n>`, then append a context pointer (gist + link) to the map's Decisions-so-far.

skills/engineering/setup-matt-pocock-skills/issue-tracker-gitlab.md

@@ -33,3 +33,14 @@ Create a GitLab issue.
 ## When a skill says "fetch the relevant ticket"
 
 Run `glab issue view <number> --comments`.
+
+## Wayfinding operations
+
+Used by `/wayfinder`. The **map** is a single issue with **child** issues as tickets.
+
+- **Map**: a single issue labelled `wayfinder:map`, holding the Notes / Decisions-so-far / Fog body. `glab issue create --label wayfinder:map`. (On GitLab tiers with native epics, an epic may hold the map instead; a labelled issue works everywhere.)
+- **Child ticket**: an issue carrying `Part of #<map>` at the top of its description and labels `wayfinder:<type>` (`research`/`prototype`/`grilling`/`task`), plus `wayfinder:claimed` once claimed.
+- **Blocking**: GitLab's native `/blocked_by #<n>` quick action (or a `Blocked by: #<n>, #<n>` line in the description as fallback). A ticket is unblocked when every issue it lists is closed.
+- **Frontier query**: `glab issue list -F json` scoped to the map's children, drop any with an open blocker or the `wayfinder:claimed` label; first in map order wins.
+- **Claim**: `glab issue update <n> --label wayfinder:claimed` — the session's first write.
+- **Resolve**: `glab issue note <n> --message "<answer>"`, then `glab issue close <n>`, then append a context pointer (gist + link) to the map's Decisions-so-far.

skills/engineering/setup-matt-pocock-skills/issue-tracker-local.md

@@ -17,3 +17,14 @@ Create a new file under `.scratch/<feature-slug>/` (creating the directory if ne
 ## When a skill says "fetch the relevant ticket"
 
 Read the file at the referenced path. The user will normally pass the path or the issue number directly.
+
+## Wayfinding operations
+
+Used by `/wayfinder`. The **map** is a file with one **child** file per ticket.
+
+- **Map**: `.scratch/<effort>/map.md` — the Notes / Decisions-so-far / Fog body.
+- **Child ticket**: `.scratch/<effort>/issues/NN-<slug>.md`, numbered from `01`, with the question in the body. A `Type:` line records the ticket type (`research`/`prototype`/`grilling`/`task`); a `Status:` line records `claimed`/`resolved`.
+- **Blocking**: a `Blocked by: NN, NN` line near the top. A ticket is unblocked when every file it lists is `resolved`.
+- **Frontier**: scan `.scratch/<effort>/issues/` for files that are open, unblocked, and unclaimed; first by number wins.
+- **Claim**: set `Status: claimed` and save before any work.
+- **Resolve**: append the answer under an `## Answer` heading, set `Status: resolved`, then append a context pointer (gist + link) to the map's Decisions-so-far in `map.md`.

skills/engineering/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -5,107 +5,32 @@ description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features
 
 # Test-Driven Development
 
-## Philosophy
+TDD is the red → green loop. This skill is the reference that makes that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, the anti-patterns, and the rules of the loop. Every section applies on every cycle — consult them before and during the loop, not after.
 
-**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
+When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
 
-**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.
+## What a good test is
 
-**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.
-
-**Tautological tests** restate the implementation inside the assertion, so they pass by construction and give zero confidence. When the expected value is computed the way the code computes it — `expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, snapshotting a figure you derived by hand the same way the code does, asserting a constant equals itself — the test can never disagree with the code: break the code wrong and the assertion breaks wrong with it. The expected value must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
+Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification — "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists — and survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure.
 
 See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
 
-## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
+## Seams — where tests go
 
-**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."
+A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals.
 
-This produces **crap tests**:
+**Test only at pre-agreed seams.** Before writing any test, write down the seams under test and confirm them with the user. No test is written at an unconfirmed seam. You can't test everything — agreeing the seams up front is how testing effort lands on the critical paths and complex logic instead of every edge case.
 
-- 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
+Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?"
 
-**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.
+## Anti-patterns
 
-```
-WRONG (horizontal):
-  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
-  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
+- **Implementation-coupled** — mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed.
+- **Tautological** — the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth — a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec.
+- **Horizontal slicing** — writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead — one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you.
 
-RIGHT (vertical):
-  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
-  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
-  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
-  ...
-```
+## Rules of the loop
 
-## Workflow
-
-### 1. Planning
-
-When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
-
-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 (small interface, deep implementation) — run the `/codebase-design` skill for the vocabulary and the testability checks
-- [ ] 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
-[ ] Expected values are independent literals, not recomputed from the code
-[ ] Code is minimal for this test
-[ ] No speculative features added
-```
+- **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features.
+- **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle.
+- **Refactoring is not part of the loop.** It belongs to the review stage (see the `review` skill), not the red → green implementation cycle.

skills/engineering/tdd/refactoring.md

@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-# 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

skills/in-progress/README.md

@@ -2,10 +2,10 @@
 
 Skills that are still being developed. They're not ready to ship — expect rough edges, breaking changes, and abandoned experiments. They're excluded from the plugin and the top-level README until they graduate to a stable bucket.
 
-- **[decision-mapping](./decision-mapping/SKILL.md)** — Turn a loose idea into a sequenced map of investigation tickets, then drive them to resolution one at a time. User-invoked.
+- **[wayfinder](./wayfinder/SKILL.md)** — Chart a route through a foggy problem — turn a loose idea into a map of investigation tickets and resolve them one at a time until the way to the goal is clear. User-invoked.
 - **[loop-me](./loop-me/SKILL.md)** — Grill yourself into implementable workflow specs over multiple sessions, using the current directory as a stateful workspace. User-invoked.
-- **[review](./review/SKILL.md)** — Review changes since a fixed point along two parallel axes: **Standards** (does the diff follow the repo's coding standards?) and **Spec** (does the diff faithfully implement the originating issue/PRD?).
 - **[wizard](./wizard/SKILL.md)** — Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through a manual procedure (setup, a one-off migration, a state transition) — opening URLs, capturing values, writing `.env` and GitHub Actions secrets. User-invoked.
 - **[writing-beats](./writing-beats/SKILL.md)** — Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. Pick a starting beat, write only that beat, then pivot to the next, until the article reaches a natural end.
 - **[writing-fragments](./writing-fragments/SKILL.md)** — Grilling session that mines you for fragments — heterogeneous nuggets of writing — and appends them to a single document as raw material for a future article.
 - **[writing-shape](./writing-shape/SKILL.md)** — Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article paragraph by paragraph, arguing format choices at each step.
+- **[claude-handoff](./claude-handoff/SKILL.md)** — Hand the current conversation off to a fresh background agent that picks up the work immediately, seeded with a handoff summary via `claude --bg`. User-invoked.

skills/in-progress/claude-handoff/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+name: claude-handoff
+description: Hand the current conversation off to a fresh background agent that picks up the work immediately.
+argument-hint: "What will the next session be used for?"
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+Write a handoff summary of the current conversation so a fresh agent can continue the work. Instead of saving it, launch a background agent seeded with the summary as its prompt: `claude --bg --name "<descriptive name>" "<handoff summary>"`. It starts in the current working directory and returns immediately; the user manages it with `claude agents`.
+
+Always pass `-n`/`--name` with a descriptive name (e.g. `--name "Fix login bug"`) — it sets the display name shown in the job list, session picker, and terminal title.
+
+Include a "suggested skills" section in the summary, which suggests skills that the agent should invoke.
+
+Do not duplicate content already captured in other artifacts (PRDs, plans, ADRs, issues, commits, diffs). Reference them by path or URL instead.
+
+Redact any sensitive information, such as API keys, passwords, or personally identifiable information — the summary becomes the agent's prompt.
+
+If the user passed arguments, treat them as a description of what the next session will focus on and tailor the summary accordingly.

skills/in-progress/decision-mapping/SKILL.md

@@ -1,108 +0,0 @@
----
-name: decision-mapping
-description: Turn a loose idea into a sequenced map of investigation tickets, then drive them to resolution one at a time.
-disable-model-invocation: true
----
-
-This skill is invoked when a loose idea requires more than one agent session to turn into a plan. It creates a stateful decision map in a markdown file, and drives the user through a sequence of tickets to resolve the open questions - which may require either prototyping, research or grilling. The map is domain-agnostic: it plans engineering work, course content, or anything else that fits the same shape.
-
-## The Decision Map
-
-The decision map is a single compact Markdown file, one per planning effort, git-tracked alongside the project. It is the canonical artifact — the **whole map is loaded as context into every session**, so it must stay compact.
-
-Assets created during tickets should be linked to from the map, not duplicated within it.
-
-### Structure
-
-Entries ("tickets"), each its own section keyed by a short dash-case slug that
-reads as a mini-title (e.g. `relational-db`, `auth-strategy`, `cache-layer`) —
-terse enough to stay token-efficient, and unique within the map.
-
-```markdown
-## relational-db: Relational Or Non-Relational Database?
-
-Blocked by: <slug>, <slug>
-Status: open | in-progress | resolved
-Type: Research | Prototype | Grilling | Task
-
-### Question
-
-<question-here>
-
-### Answer
-
-<answer-here>
-```
-
-The slug is the canonical id, used in every `Blocked by` edge and prose
-reference; the title after the colon is optional. A ticket
-is **unblocked** when every ticket in its `Blocked by` list is `resolved`. A
-session **claims** its ticket by setting `Status: in-progress` and saving the map
-before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it.
-
-Each ticket must be sized to one 100K token agent session.
-
-## Ticket Types
-
-There are four types of tickets:
-
-- **Research**: Reading documentation, third-party API's, or local resources like knowledge bases. Creates a markdown summary as an asset. Use this when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
-- **Prototype**: Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to — an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code via the /prototype skill. Creates the prototype as an asset. Use this when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
-- **Grilling**: Conversation with the agent. Uses the /grilling and /domain-modeling skills. Asks one question at a time. The default case.
-- **Task**: Literal manual work that must be done before the discussion can move forward — nothing to decide, prototype, or research. Moving data from one place to another, signing up for a third-party service, provisioning access. The agent automates it where it can; otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist to do by hand. Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.
-
-## Fog of war
-
-The map is _deliberately_ incomplete beyond the frontier. Your job is to investigate the frontier, and to resolve tickets in order to push the frontier forward. Push back the fog of war, one node at a time — until the path to the finish line is clear and no tickets remain.
-
-## Invocation
-
-Two branches. Either way, **every session ends with a [Handoff](#handoff)** — never resolve more than one ticket per session.
-
-### Create the map
-
-User invokes with a loose idea.
-
-1. Run a `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling` session to surface the open decisions. Ask one question at a time.
-2. Write a new decision map — mostly fog, frontier identified, trivially-decidable entries resolved inline.
-3. Handoff. Map-building is one session's work; do not also resolve tickets.
-
-### Work through the map
-
-User invokes with a path to an existing map. A ticket slug is **optional** — without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.
-
-1. Load the **whole map** as context.
-2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise pick the first `open` ticket in document order that is [unblocked](#structure). [Claim it](#structure): set `Status: in-progress` and save before any work.
-3. Resolve it, invoking skills as needed — including any the `## Notes` block names. If in doubt, use `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling`.
-4. Record the answer in the ticket's body and set `Status: resolved`.
-5. Add newly-discovered tickets with correct `Blocked by` edges. If the decisions made invalidate other parts of the map, update or delete those nodes.
-6. Handoff.
-
-The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other agents to be editing the map in their own sessions.
-
-## Handoff
-
-End every session by clearing the context and opening one or more fresh sessions. Close with a **Next steps** block the user can copy-paste. Two cases:
-
-**Open tickets remain.** List the currently-unblocked tickets, then give two copy-paste options: a bare command for one session (you pick the next ticket), and one pinned command per unblocked ticket for running them in parallel. Paste one line per fresh window — opening one, some, or all of them.
-
-> **Next steps** — 3 tickets unblocked: `auth-strategy`, `cache-layer`, `rate-limits`.
-> Clear the context, then open fresh sessions.
->
-> **One session** — resolves the next unblocked ticket:
-> ```
-> Invoke /decision-mapping with the map at <path>.
-> ```
->
-> **Parallel** — paste one line per window, up to all 3:
-> ```
-> Invoke /decision-mapping with the map at <path>, ticket auth-strategy.
-> Invoke /decision-mapping with the map at <path>, ticket cache-layer.
-> Invoke /decision-mapping with the map at <path>, ticket rate-limits.
-> ```
-
-**No open tickets remain.** The fog is pushed back far enough that the path to the finish line is clear — the map is done. (The initial grilling may also surface no fog at all, in which case there was never a map to build.) Recommend implementing directly, or using `/to-prd` to schedule a multi-session implementation.
-
-## Notes
-
-An optional block declaring the **domain**, any skills every session should `consult`, and freeform standing preferences the planning surfaces.

skills/in-progress/wayfinder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+name: wayfinder
+description: Plan a huge chunk of work — more than one agent session can hold — as a shared map of investigation tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the goal is clear.
+---
+
+A loose idea has arrived — too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog: the route from here to a plan isn't visible yet. This skill charts it as a **shared map** on the repo's issue tracker, then works its tickets one at a time. The map is domain-agnostic — engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape.
+
+## Refer by name
+
+Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a **name** — its title. In everything the human reads — narration, the map's Decisions-so-far — refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of `#42, #43, #44` is illegible; names read at a glance. The id and URL don't vanish — a name wraps its link — but they ride *inside* the name, never stand in for it.
+
+## The Map
+
+The map is a single issue on this repo's issue tracker, labelled `wayfinder:map` — the canonical artifact. Its tickets are child issues of the map.
+
+The map is an **index**, not a store. It lists the decisions made and points at the tickets that hold their detail; a decision lives in exactly one place — its ticket — so the map never restates it, only gists it and links.
+
+**Where the map, its child tickets, blocking, and frontier queries physically live is tracker-specific.** Consult `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` (the "Wayfinding operations" section) for how _this_ repo expresses them. If that doc is absent, default to the local-markdown tracker.
+
+### The map body
+
+The whole map at low resolution, loaded once per session. Open tickets are **not** listed — they are open child issues, found by query.
+
+```markdown
+## Notes
+
+<domain; skills every session should consult; standing preferences for this effort>
+
+## Decisions so far
+
+<!-- the index — one line per closed ticket: enough to judge relevance, then zoom the link for the detail the ticket holds -->
+
+- [<closed ticket title>](link) — <one-line gist of the answer>
+
+## Fog
+
+<!-- see "Fog of war" for what belongs here -->
+```
+
+### Tickets
+
+Each ticket is a **child issue** of the map; the tracker's issue id is its identity. Its body is the question, sized to one 100K token agent session:
+
+```markdown
+## Question
+
+<the decision or investigation this ticket resolves>
+```
+
+Two label families:
+
+- `wayfinder:<type>` — one of `research`, `prototype`, `grilling`, `task` (see [Ticket Types](#ticket-types)).
+- `wayfinder:claimed` — a session sets this **first**, before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it.
+
+Blocking uses the tracker's native semantics. A ticket is **unblocked** when every ticket blocking it is closed. The **frontier** is the open, unblocked, unclaimed children — the edge of the known.
+
+The answer isn't part of the body — it's recorded on resolution (see [Work through the map](#work-through-the-map)). Assets created while resolving a ticket are linked from the issue, not pasted in.
+
+## Ticket Types
+
+- **Research**: Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases. Creates a markdown summary as a linked asset. Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
+- **Prototype**: Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to — an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code via the /prototype skill. Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
+- **Grilling**: Conversation with the agent. Uses the /grilling and /domain-modeling skills. Asks one question at a time. The default case.
+- **Task**: Literal manual work that must be done before the discussion can move forward — nothing to decide, prototype, or research. Moving data, signing up for a service, provisioning access. The agent automates it where it can; otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist. Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.
+
+## Fog of war
+
+The map is _deliberately_ incomplete: don't chart what you can't yet see. Beyond the tickets lies fog — the dim view of decisions and investigations you can tell are coming but can't yet pin down, because they hang on questions still open. Resolving a ticket clears the fog ahead of it, graduating whatever's now specifiable into fresh tickets — one at a time, until the way to the goal is clear and no tickets remain.
+
+The map's **Fog** section is where that dim view is written down: the suspected question, the area to revisit later, the risk you're deferring. Write as loosely or as fully as the view allows; it doubles as a signpost for collaborators reading where the effort is headed.
+
+**Fog or ticket?** The test is whether you can state the question precisely now — _not_ whether you can answer it now.
+
+- **Ticket when** the question is already sharp — even if it's blocked and you can't act on it yet.
+- **Fog when** you can't yet phrase it that sharply. Don't pre-slice fog into ticket-sized pieces: it's coarser than a ticket, and one patch may graduate into several tickets, or none, once the frontier reaches it.
+
+Fog excludes only what's already decided (that's Decisions so far) and what's already a ticket.
+
+## Invocation
+
+Two modes. Either way, **never resolve more than one ticket per session.**
+
+### Chart the map
+
+User invokes with a loose idea.
+
+1. Run a `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling` session to surface the open decisions.
+2. **Create the map** (label `wayfinder:map`): Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, Fog sketched.
+3. **Create the tickets you can specify now** as child issues of the map — then wire blocking edges in a **second pass** (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the Fog.
+4. Stop — charting the map is one session's work; do not also resolve tickets.
+
+### Work through the map
+
+User invokes with a map (URL or number). A ticket is **optional** — without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.
+
+1. Load the **map** — the low-res view, not every ticket body.
+2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise take the first frontier ticket in order. **Claim it**: set `wayfinder:claimed` and save before any work.
+3. Resolve it — **zoom as needed**: fetch the full body of any related or closed ticket on demand; invoke the skills the `## Notes` block names. If in doubt, use `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling`.
+4. Record the resolution: post the answer as a **resolution comment**, **close** the issue, and **append a context pointer** to the map's Decisions-so-far.
+5. Add newly-surfaced tickets (create-then-wire); graduate any fog the answer has made specifiable, clearing each graduated patch from the Fog so it lives only as its new ticket. If the decision invalidates other parts of the map, update or delete those tickets.
+
+The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently.

skills/productivity/grilling/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: grilling
-description: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan before building, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.
+description: Grill the user relentlessly about a plan or design. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan before building, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.
 ---
 
 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.
@@ -8,3 +8,5 @@ Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a share
 Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing. Asking multiple questions at once is bewildering.
 
 If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
+
+Do not enact the plan until I confirm we have reached a shared understanding.