mirror of
https://github.com/mattpocock/skills.git
synced 2026-07-29 02:52:42 +07:00
Matt PocockandClaude Opus 4.8
386d4ff719
Executes the `unify-to-tickets` decision (personal-wiki #23), reworking this PR from "add /to-plan" into the full planning-skills unification. - Rename /to-prd → /to-spec. "spec" is now the single through-line term (the skill still opens with "you may know this document as a PRD" for discoverability). - Merge /to-plan + /to-issues into one /to-tickets skill; delete /to-issues. /to-tickets emits a set of tickets, each declaring its blocking edges — one medium-agnostic artifact that reads as a sequential plan (local `tickets.md`, edges as text) or a parallelizable DAG (real tracker, native blocking links). The edges live in the ticket either way; the medium only decides whether anything acts on them in parallel. - ask-matt now routes idea → /to-spec → /to-tickets → /implement. - Sweep every cross-reference (docs pages, chain diagrams, CONTEXT.md, ADRs, .agents, setup templates) to the new names and vocabulary. - Rewrite the changeset to describe the unification. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
44 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
44 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
Quickstart:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
npx skills add mattpocock/skills --skill=codebase-design
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
npx skills update codebase-design
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
[Source](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/engineering/codebase-design)
|
|
|
|
## What it does
|
|
|
|
`codebase-design` gives you a shared, precise vocabulary for designing **deep modules** — a lot of behaviour hidden behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface.
|
|
|
|
It is a **language, not a procedure**. It doesn't restructure your code or hand you a refactor plan — it fixes the words (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) so that every design conversation and every other skill that touches design speaks the same way. Consistent language is the whole point; "component," "service," "API," and "boundary" are deliberately banned because they blur the distinctions that matter.
|
|
|
|
## When to reach for it
|
|
|
|
Type `/codebase-design`, or the agent reaches for it automatically when a task fits.
|
|
|
|
Reach for it when you're designing or improving a module's interface, hunting for deepening opportunities, deciding where a seam goes, or making code more testable and AI-navigable. Other skills pull it in whenever they need the deep-module vocabulary. If you want to sharpen the project's *domain* terms rather than its module design, use [domain-modeling](https://aihero.dev/skills-domain-modeling) instead; to run a whole architecture pass over an existing codebase, use [improve-codebase-architecture](https://aihero.dev/skills-improve-codebase-architecture).
|
|
|
|
## Deep, not shallow
|
|
|
|
A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface, and **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation. Depth is measured as **leverage** — how much a caller (or a test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. Crucially, depth is a property of the *interface*, not the implementation: a deep module can be internally composed of small, swappable parts that just never surface to callers.
|
|
|
|
Two checks do most of the work. The **deletion test**: imagine deleting the module — if complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through; if it reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep. And **one adapter means a hypothetical seam; two adapters means a real one** — don't cut a seam until something actually varies across it.
|
|
|
|
## The interface is the test surface
|
|
|
|
Callers and tests cross the same seam, so a well-placed interface gives tests something durable to aim at while the code underneath moves freely. That's why the vocabulary insists on **seam** (Feathers' term — a place you can change behaviour without editing there) over the overloaded "boundary," and why "interface" here means *every fact a caller must know*: signatures, yes, but also invariants, ordering, error modes, and performance — not just the type-level surface.
|
|
|
|
## Pulled out on purpose
|
|
|
|
`codebase-design` is the **single source of truth** for the deep-module vocabulary, split out as its own model-invoked skill so anything can reach it. Other skills point at it rather than restating the words: [tdd](https://aihero.dev/skills-tdd) borrows it to place a seam before writing the test, [improve-codebase-architecture](https://aihero.dev/skills-improve-codebase-architecture) leans on it while restructuring existing code, and [to-spec](https://aihero.dev/skills-to-spec) speaks it when it sketches seams and deepening opportunities before writing a spec.
|
|
|
|
The point of keeping it standalone is that you can also reach for it on its own — as a **reference** for how to think about module design — without triggering the larger process any of those skills mandate. Fix the words once, in one place, and every design conversation inherits them.
|
|
|
|
## Where it fits
|
|
|
|
`codebase-design` is a **reach-for-it-anytime standalone** — the shared vocabulary layer under the engineering skills. Its closest neighbour is [domain-modeling](https://aihero.dev/skills-domain-modeling), the parallel vocabulary skill for the problem domain rather than the module structure. When you're unsure which skill or flow fits, [ask-matt](https://aihero.dev/skills-ask-matt) routes you.
|