Defame1297/holocron
0
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 14 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 3 Wiki Activity

fix(kyberforge): bridge apm content to Claude Code's flat plugin discovery

Browse Source 
Claude Code's (and Copilot's) native plugin installer has zero awareness of
.apm/ nesting -- it convention-scans only flat skills/, agents/, commands/,
hooks.json at each plugin's root. Confirmed via strings on the installed
claude binary and live installs of git@holocron/gitea@holocron/kyberforge@
holocron, all reporting Skills(0) Agents(0) Hooks(0) post ADR-0015's apm
conversion. Root cause (apm_cli/core/plugin_manifest.py): apm's plugin.json
compiler deliberately strips skills/agents/commands keys, assuming the host
already auto-discovers those convention directories -- it has no model of
.apm/ being host-visible at all. Separately, apm's own bundle exporter
(apm_cli/bundle/plugin_exporter.py, behind `apm pack --format plugin`)
implements the correct .apm/ -> flat mapping, but only ever targeted
build/<name>-<version>/, a path nothing in marketplace.json's source: points
at.

scripts/sync-plugin-content.sh wraps that bundle exporter and copies its
agents/, skills/, commands/, instructions/, extensions/, and merged
hooks.json back into each plugin's own root as a second tracked
compiled-output category -- same governance status as
.claude-plugin/plugin.json: generated from .apm/, never hand-edited. tests/
subdirectories are excluded from the mirror (dev fixtures, not host-visible
runtime content; several hardcode a relative repo-root walk-up sized for the
.apm/-nested depth, which breaks when duplicated one level shallower).
Applied for real across all 6 plugins and verified two ways: `claude plugin
validate --strict` passes on every real plugin directory, and a live
`claude --plugin-dir <path> -p "list skills/agents"` behavioral test
confirms content is now actually discovered.

Also, from the same issue #90 review round:
- scripts/check-manifests.sh pointed at each plugin's root-level plugin.json
  (checking skills/hooks/mcpServers/agents pointer fields) -- that file was a
  stale near-duplicate of .claude-plugin/plugin.json nothing else read or
  wrote, now deleted across all 6 plugins. check-manifests.sh is rewritten to
  validate .claude-plugin/plugin.json instead, and drops the pointer-field
  checks entirely (nothing to check -- those fields are correctly absent by
  design). Content-presence drift is now check-plugin-content-sync's job, a
  new pre-push hook wired in .pre-commit-config.yaml.

docs/adr/0017 records the root cause and decision in full, including two
rejected alternatives (patching plugin.json's path fields directly -- apm's
compiler strips them on every run; pointing marketplace.json at apm pack's
build/ output -- a version-suffixed non-source directory nothing can install
from without an extra build step). ADR-0015 and CONTEXT.md are updated to
point at it.

Refs: #90
This commit is contained in:
Defame1297
2026-08-13 16:59:03 +00:00
parent 7910b8b12c
commit 38f1ba4e03
217 changed files with 14455 additions and 175 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

44
plugins/bin/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/INTERFACE-DESIGN.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
# Interface Design
When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
Uses the vocabulary in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
## Process
### 1. Frame the problem space
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
### 2. Spawn sub-agents
Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
Include both [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
Each sub-agent outputs:
1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
### 3. Present and compare
Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.