mirror of
https://github.com/mattpocock/skills.git
synced 2026-04-30 14:03:53 +07:00
Matt Pocock
102 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
102 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# Out-of-Scope Knowledge Base
|
|
|
|
The `.out-of-scope/` directory in a repo stores persistent records of rejected feature requests. It serves two purposes:
|
|
|
|
1. **Institutional memory** — why a feature was rejected, so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed
|
|
2. **Deduplication** — when a new issue comes in that matches a prior rejection, the skill can surface the previous decision instead of re-litigating it
|
|
|
|
## Directory structure
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
.out-of-scope/
|
|
├── dark-mode.md
|
|
├── plugin-system.md
|
|
└── graphql-api.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thing are grouped under one file.
|
|
|
|
## File format
|
|
|
|
The file should be written in a relaxed, readable style — more like a short design document than a database entry. Use paragraphs, code samples, and examples to make the reasoning clear and useful to someone encountering it for the first time.
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Dark Mode
|
|
|
|
This project does not support dark mode or user-facing theming.
|
|
|
|
## Why this is out of scope
|
|
|
|
The rendering pipeline assumes a single color palette defined in
|
|
`ThemeConfig`. Supporting multiple themes would require:
|
|
|
|
- A theme context provider wrapping the entire component tree
|
|
- Per-component theme-aware style resolution
|
|
- A persistence layer for user theme preferences
|
|
|
|
This is a significant architectural change that doesn't align with the
|
|
project's focus on content authoring. Theming is a concern for downstream
|
|
consumers who embed or redistribute the output.
|
|
|
|
```ts
|
|
// The current ThemeConfig interface is not designed for runtime switching:
|
|
interface ThemeConfig {
|
|
colors: ColorPalette; // single palette, resolved at build time
|
|
fonts: FontStack;
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Prior requests
|
|
|
|
- #42 — "Add dark mode support"
|
|
- #87 — "Night theme for accessibility"
|
|
- #134 — "Dark theme option"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Naming the file
|
|
|
|
Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugin-system.md`, `graphql-api.md`. The name should be recognizable enough that someone browsing the directory understands what was rejected without opening the file.
|
|
|
|
### Writing the reason
|
|
|
|
The reason should be substantive — not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
|
|
|
|
- Project scope or philosophy ("This project focuses on X; theming is a downstream concern")
|
|
- Technical constraints ("Supporting this would require Y, which conflicts with our Z architecture")
|
|
- Strategic decisions ("We chose to use A instead of B because...")
|
|
|
|
The reason should be durable. Avoid referencing temporary circumstances ("we're too busy right now") — those aren't real rejections, they're deferrals.
|
|
|
|
## When to check `.out-of-scope/`
|
|
|
|
During triage (Step 1: Gather context), read all files in `.out-of-scope/`. When evaluating a new issue:
|
|
|
|
- Check if the request matches an existing out-of-scope concept
|
|
- Matching is by concept similarity, not keyword — "night theme" matches `dark-mode.md`
|
|
- If there's a match, surface it to the maintainer: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/dark-mode.md` — we rejected this before because [reason]. Do you still feel the same way?"
|
|
|
|
The maintainer may:
|
|
|
|
- **Confirm** — the new issue gets added to the existing file's "Prior requests" list, then closed
|
|
- **Reconsider** — the out-of-scope file gets deleted or updated, and the issue proceeds through normal triage
|
|
- **Disagree** — the issues are related but distinct, proceed with normal triage
|
|
|
|
## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
|
|
|
|
Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is rejected as `wontfix`. The flow:
|
|
|
|
1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
|
|
2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
|
|
3. If yes: append the new issue to the "Prior requests" list
|
|
4. If no: create a new file with the concept name, decision, reason, and first prior request
|
|
5. Post a comment on the issue explaining the decision and mentioning the `.out-of-scope/` file
|
|
6. Close the issue with the `wontfix` label
|
|
|
|
## Updating or removing out-of-scope files
|
|
|
|
If the maintainer changes their mind about a previously rejected concept:
|
|
|
|
- Delete the `.out-of-scope/` file
|
|
- The skill does not need to reopen old issues — they're historical records
|
|
- The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage
|