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

refactor(bin): move non-spec root files into references/ across four skills

Browse Source 
grill-with-docs, improve-codebase-architecture, tdd, and triage kept
non-spec markdown files at their skill root, in violation of
skill-audit's file-structure.md rule (only SKILL.md/README.md belong
at the root; everything else lives in scripts/, references/, assets/
or tests/). A root-level file is invisible to the ADR-0020
dangling-reference gate, which only resolves unqualified
`references/...` pointers.

- Moved and renamed to lowercase-kebab-case under references/:
  grill-with-docs (ADR-FORMAT.md, CONTEXT-FORMAT.md),
  improve-codebase-architecture (DEEPENING.md, INTERFACE-DESIGN.md,
  LANGUAGE.md), tdd (five files, casing was already fine), triage
  (AGENT-BRIEF.md, OUT-OF-SCOPE.md).
- Updated every in-skill link to the new references/ paths, including
  link text that still showed the old uppercase filenames.
- Fixed improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md's cross-skill citation
  of grill-with-docs's two files to the sanctioned possessive form
  with the references/ segment included.
- Updated all four skills' README.md file tables to match.
- Regenerated the flat content mirror via
  scripts/sync-plugin-content.sh --all.

Fixes #122.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PDj6F7SPXzh3FtPN78dZ88
This commit is contained in:
Defame1297
2026-09-09 19:59:02 +00:00
parent 058fb5b748
commit 4f49b2a249
40 changed files with 64 additions and 64 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

168
plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/references/agent-brief.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
# Writing Agent Briefs
An agent brief is a structured comment posted on an issue in the issue tracker when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
## Principles
### Durability over precision
The issue may sit in `ready-for-agent` for days or weeks. The codebase will change in the meantime. Write the brief so it stays useful even as files are renamed, moved, or refactored.
- **Do** describe interfaces, types, and behavioral contracts
- **Do** name specific types, function signatures, or config shapes that the agent should look for or modify
- **Don't** reference file paths — they go stale
- **Don't** reference line numbers
- **Don't** assume the current implementation structure will remain the same
### Behavioral, not procedural
Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent will explore the codebase fresh and make its own implementation decisions.
- **Good:** "The `SkillConfig` type should accept an optional `schedule` field of type `CronExpression`"
- **Bad:** "Open src/types/skill.ts and add a schedule field on line 42"
- **Good:** "When a user runs `/triage` with no arguments, they should see a summary of issues needing attention"
- **Bad:** "Add a switch statement in the main handler function"
### Complete acceptance criteria
The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
- **Good:** "Querying the issue tracker for the `needs-triage` label returns issues that have been through initial classification"
- **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
### Explicit scope boundaries
State what is out of scope. This prevents the agent from gold-plating or making assumptions about adjacent features.
## Template
```markdown
## Agent Brief
**Category:** bug / enhancement
**Summary:** one-line description of what needs to happen
**Current behavior:**
Describe what happens now. For bugs, this is the broken behavior.
For enhancements, this is the status quo the feature builds on.
**Desired behavior:**
Describe what should happen after the agent's work is complete.
Be specific about edge cases and error conditions.
**Key interfaces:**
- `TypeName` — what needs to change and why
- `functionName()` return type — what it currently returns vs what it should return
- Config shape — any new configuration options needed
**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 3
**Out of scope:**
- Thing that should NOT be changed or addressed in this issue
- Adjacent feature that might seem related but is separate
```
## Examples
### Good agent brief (bug)
```markdown
## Agent Brief
**Category:** bug
**Summary:** Skill description truncation drops mid-word, producing broken output
**Current behavior:**
When a skill description exceeds 1024 characters, it is truncated at exactly
1024 characters regardless of word boundaries. This produces descriptions
that end mid-word (e.g. "Use when the user wants to confi").
**Desired behavior:**
Truncation should break at the last word boundary before 1024 characters
and append "..." to indicate truncation.
**Key interfaces:**
- The `SkillMetadata` type's `description` field — no type change needed,
but the validation/processing logic that populates it needs to respect
word boundaries
- Any function that reads SKILL.md frontmatter and extracts the description
**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] Descriptions under 1024 chars are unchanged
- [ ] Descriptions over 1024 chars are truncated at the last word boundary
before 1024 chars
- [ ] Truncated descriptions end with "..."
- [ ] The total length including "..." does not exceed 1024 chars
**Out of scope:**
- Changing the 1024 char limit itself
- Multi-line description support
```
### Good agent brief (enhancement)
```markdown
## Agent Brief
**Category:** enhancement
**Summary:** Add `.out-of-scope/` directory support for tracking rejected feature requests
**Current behavior:**
When a feature request is rejected, the issue is closed with a `wontfix` label
and a comment. There is no persistent record of the decision or reasoning.
Future similar requests require the maintainer to recall or search for the
prior discussion.
**Desired behavior:**
Rejected feature requests should be documented in `.out-of-scope/<concept>.md`
files that capture the decision, reasoning, and links to all issues that
requested the feature. When triaging new issues, these files should be
checked for matches.
**Key interfaces:**
- Markdown file format in `.out-of-scope/` — each file should have a
`# Concept Name` heading, a `**Decision:**` line, a `**Reason:**` line,
and a `**Prior requests:**` list with issue links
- The triage workflow should read all `.out-of-scope/*.md` files early
and match incoming issues against them by concept similarity
**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] Closing a feature as wontfix creates/updates a file in `.out-of-scope/`
- [ ] The file includes the decision, reasoning, and link to the closed issue
- [ ] If a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists, the new issue is
appended to its "Prior requests" list rather than creating a duplicate
- [ ] During triage, existing `.out-of-scope/` files are checked and surfaced
when a new issue matches a prior rejection
**Out of scope:**
- Automated matching (human confirms the match)
- Reopening previously rejected features
- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
```
### Bad agent brief
```markdown
## Agent Brief
**Summary:** Fix the triage bug
**What to do:**
The triage thing is broken. Look at the main file and fix it.
The function around line 150 has the issue.
**Files to change:**
- src/triage/handler.ts (line 150)
- src/types.ts (line 42)
```
This is bad because:
- No category
- Vague description ("the triage thing is broken")
- References file paths and line numbers that will go stale
- No acceptance criteria
- No scope boundaries
- No description of current vs desired behavior

101
plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/references/out-of-scope.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
# 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