refactor(skills): retrofit the corpus to the ADR-0020 context contract (#129)

Retrofits all 39 skills to ADR-0020's description/body context contract, then fixes what six rounds of independent review found in that retrofit — including four ways the hot gate itself failed open.

Closes #99, #107, #108, #110, #111, #114, #115, #120.

## The retrofit (waves 1-5)

| | Start | Now |
|---|---|---|
| Description FAILs (>400 chars) | 26 | **0** |
| Body FAILs (>900 words, body-only) | 9 | **0** |
| Dangling routing targets | 2 | **0** |
| `Kyberforge.CompositionNote` | 10 | **0** |
| Preload tax | 21,005 chars | **~10,500** |

Under the 12,000-char success criterion. Per-wave detail is on #99.

## The review fixes

**The gate failed open four ways, three of them found after the retrofit shipped.** An unrecognised follower token made a dangling target vanish. A skill directory with no `SKILL.md` resolved as a valid target, so a commit could be green locally and red in a fresh clone — three existing fixtures were relying on that, one of which made the install-leak A/B pass vacuously. Then the free-standing `/name` sweep turned out to be gated on the sentence carrying a boundary marker, so route notation in any other sentence was invisible — not an ERROR, not a SUGGESTION, not an INFO — which left the documented "`/name` always blocks" promise false from a second direction. All four fixed and pinned.

**Two checks were silently not running.** `validate-provenance.sh` checks 7-8 were dead across nine skills. Waking them exposed a deeper problem: they assume `Research doc:` names a source index, but 30 of 121 entries point at topic content documents, so every new check-7 INFO was a false positive and check 8 was saved from a false-FAIL flood only by an *unannounced* skip. Checks 7/8 are now scoped to source indexes and every skip announces itself (#121).

**The retrofit's own anti-goal, four times.** ADR-0020 warns that a blunt gate gets satisfied by deleting content rather than relocating it. `diagnose` and `skill-audit` relocated prose and then read it unconditionally; `prototype` and `vale-config` deleted rules outright that survived nowhere. All four addressed.

## Verification

- `bash tests/run-tests.sh --strict` — 24 suites, 0 skipped, 0 failed
- `bash tests/run-bats.sh` — 325 tests, 0 failures
- `pre-commit run --all-files` — 17/17
- `pre-commit run --hook-stage pre-push --all-files` — 16/16, with `apm marketplace check` and `apm pack --check-clean` run against the remote, not skipped
- `scripts/skill-size-check.sh` over all 39 skills — rc 0, 0 ERROR/FAIL, SUGGESTION-only
- Preload tax measured at **10,498 chars**, max description 390 — both inside budget
- Every new test proven non-vacuous by a deliberate mutation of the behaviour it covers

**Per-commit sync, stated accurately:** the ten commits from the latest review round each pass `check-plugin-content-sync` in isolation, verified by checking each out in a detached worktree with a clean between. The earlier gitea window (`dfacf05..bedbd1d`, nine commits) does **not** — its mirror was regenerated in one batch at `bbc7300`. An earlier revision of this description claimed the property held for every commit; it does not, and a bisect through that window lands on a red commit. **Squash-merge** to collapse it, or accept that this range is not bisectable.

## Version bump

Six plugins and the catalog take a **patch**, not a minor. The branch is **89 commits — 40 `fix` / 30 `refactor` / 12 `docs` / 5 `chore` / 2 `test` — zero `feat`, zero `!`, zero `BREAKING CHANGE`** — and adds no skill, agent, command or hook. (Two earlier revisions of this section cited a stale histogram, most recently 78 commits; the figures above are measured at HEAD.) Both rules this repo ships (`forge/references/version-bump.md`, landing in this PR, and `git-commits/references/conventional-commits-spec.md`) make that a patch, and the catalog set is unchanged at 7 entries.

Not settled by that: four published files were removed from the installed tree, three moved, and `caveman` gained `disable-model-invocation`, retiring its old triggers. Under a strict reading those are major-class and currently ship under `refactor:` with no marker. Whether the deployed skill surface is a public contract is written down nowhere — worth deciding, but it outlives this PR.

## Deliberately not in scope

#112 (cherry-pick ownership, now resolved in favour of `git-commits`), #113 (`rtk git` normalisation), #116 (research fan-out), #101 (audit-skill merge), #122 (non-spec skill-root files), #123 (no PRD producer) stay open. #117 is the one worth reading: the contract's remedy is to move prose into `references/`, which is exactly where neither the size gate nor Vale looks — and the blind spot is wider than #117 currently records, since there is no root `.vale.ini` at all, so every ADR, `CONTEXT.md` and `README.md` is unlinted too.

That blind spot let this branch carry two `level: error` `Kyberforge.SentenceOpenerThereIs` violations into `references/` files it created — `provider-adapter-author/references/provider-matrix.md:31` and `agent-audit/references/finding-criteria.md:95`. Both are reworded in `afadaae`, confirmed by routing each file through the audit's own `vale-wrap.sh` (1 error each before, 0 after). Five further occurrences sit in `references/` files already on `main`; those are the pre-existing corpus and stay with #117, which is the real fix.

Also unfixed and not this PR's: `apm install` appends a duplicate `SessionStart` entry to `.claude/settings.json`, so a fresh clone cannot get pre-push green without an edit AGENTS.md warns against. Reproduces identically on `main`.

Co-authored-by: Defame1297 <gitea@rkdr.net>
Reviewed-on: https://git.dev.rkdr.net/Defame1297/holocron/pulls/129
Co-authored-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net>
Co-committed-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net>

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/caveman/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# caveman
+
+Ultra-compressed output mode: drop articles, filler and pleasantries, keep the technical substance exact.
+
+## What it does
+
+Switches the agent into a terse register — no articles, no hedging, no pleasantries, fragments allowed, arrows for causality — while leaving technical terms, code blocks and quoted error strings untouched. The mode is *sticky*: once turned on it stays on for every subsequent response until the user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode", rather than decaying back to normal prose after a few turns.
+
+It carries one built-in escape hatch. Security warnings, confirmations for irreversible actions, multi-step sequences where fragment order could be misread, and any request to clarify are answered in normal prose, then the compressed register resumes.
+
+## Hand-invoked only
+
+`SKILL.md` sets `disable-model-invocation: true`. This is the single most important thing to know about this skill: **the model cannot route to it.** No other skill can hand off to it, and no phrasing in a user's request will cause it to be selected automatically. The only way in is the human typing `/caveman`.
+
+That is deliberate — output style is the user's choice, not an inference the router should make on their behalf. It is also why the description reads as one plain human-facing sentence rather than carrying the trigger phrasing and boundary clause a routable skill needs.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/caveman
+```
+
+Then keep working normally. To leave the mode, say "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — persistence rule, compression rules, worked examples, and the auto-clarity exception |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/caveman/SKILL.md

@@ -1,17 +1,16 @@
 ---
 name: caveman
+disable-model-invocation: true
 description: >
-  Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by dropping
-  filler, articles, and pleasantries while keeping full technical accuracy.
-  Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman",
-  "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman.
+  Ultra-compressed output mode that drops articles, filler and pleasantries while
+  keeping technical substance exact, cutting token usage by roughly 75%.
 ---
 
 Respond terse like smart caveman. All technical substance stay. Only fluff die.
 
 ## Persistence
 
-ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once triggered. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once user type `/caveman`. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
 
 ## Rules
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# diagnose
+
+A six-phase discipline for hard bugs and performance regressions: feedback loop → reproduce → hypothesise → instrument → fix with a regression test → clean up.
+
+## What it does
+
+Imposes an order of operations on debugging so the agent cannot skip to guessing. The load-bearing phase is the first one: build a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug. Everything downstream — bisection, hypothesis testing, instrumentation — just consumes that signal, so the skill refuses to advance to Phase 2 without one, and says so explicitly rather than hypothesising blind.
+
+The remaining phases each carry a constraint worth knowing about: hypotheses are generated 3–5 at a time and must be falsifiable, so the first plausible idea cannot anchor the whole investigation; every debug log is tagged with a unique prefix (`[DEBUG-a4f2]`) so cleanup is a single grep; the regression test is written before the fix and only at a seam that exercises the real bug pattern; and the run closes by asking what would have prevented the bug, handing off to `improve-codebase-architecture` when the answer is architectural.
+
+Performance regressions take a branch of their own inside Phase 4 — baseline measurement and bisection, not logs.
+
+## Conditional reading
+
+Neither reference file is read on every run; `SKILL.md` names the condition for each.
+
+- `references/feedback-loops.md` is read when Phase 1 has no signal yet, or when the loop you have is slow or intermittent.
+- `references/regression-seams.md` is read when Phase 5 leaves you unsure whether the available seam is deep enough — or whether one exists at all.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/diagnose
+```
+
+Describe the bug or the regression. For filing and triaging a reported bug rather than diagnosing it, use `triage`; for test-first feature work, use `tdd`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The six phases and their gates — what must be true before each one ends |
+| `references/feedback-loops.md` | Loaded when Phase 1 has no loop or the loop is too weak: ten ways to construct one ordered by cost, how to sharpen an existing loop, handling intermittent bugs, and what to ask the user for when the bug resists reproduction |
+| `references/regression-seams.md` | Loaded when Phase 5 is unsure about the seam: what makes a seam correct, the four shapes of a too-shallow seam, and what to do when no correct seam exists |
+| `assets/hitl-loop.template.sh` | Copy-and-edit bash template for the last-resort human-in-the-loop feedback loop, cited by `references/feedback-loops.md`. Provides `step` and `capture` helpers and prints captured values as `KEY=VALUE` for the agent to parse |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: diagnose
-description: Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, or describes a performance regression.
+description: >
+  Use when the user says "diagnose this" or "debug this", reports something
+  broken, throwing, or failing, or says something got slow. Not filing or
+  triaging a reported bug -> `triage`. Not test-first feature work -> `tdd`.
 ---
 
 # Diagnose
@@ -15,40 +18,11 @@ When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear me
 
 Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
 
-### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+**If you do not yet have such a signal, read `references/feedback-loops.md`** — ten ways to build one ordered by cost, and what to ask the user for when the bug resists reproduction entirely.
 
-1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
-2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
-3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
-4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
-5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
-6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
-7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
-8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
-9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
-10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+**If you do have one, it is probably not sharp enough yet.** Make it faster and more deterministic, and make it assert on the exact symptom rather than "didn't crash" — a 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. If it stays slow or intermittent after that, read that file's "Iterate on the loop itself" and "Intermittent bugs" sections.
 
-Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
-
-### Iterate on the loop itself
-
-Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
-
-- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
-- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
-- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
-
-A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. A 2-second deterministic loop is a debugging superpower.
-
-### Non-deterministic bugs
-
-The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
-
-### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
-
-Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
-
-Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in.
+Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in. If you cannot build one, stop and say so explicitly, listing what you tried — never hypothesise without a signal.
 
 ## Phase 2 — Reproduce
 
@@ -57,7 +31,7 @@ Run the loop. Watch the bug appear.
 Confirm:
 
 - [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
-- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
+- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs. If it is intermittent, `references/feedback-loops.md` defines the rate high enough to debug against — go back to Phase 1 and raise it.
 - [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
 
 Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
@@ -90,19 +64,17 @@ Tool preference:
 
 ## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
 
-Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only at a **correct seam**: one where the test exercises the real bug pattern as it occurs at the call site. If the available seam looks too shallow, or you cannot tell whether it is, read `references/regression-seams.md`.
 
-A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it and carry it into Phase 6 — the architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down.
 
-**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
+At a correct seam:
 
-If a correct seam exists:
-
-1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
+1. Turn the Phase 1 loop into a failing test at that seam, narrowed to the symptom captured in Phase 2.
 2. Watch it fail.
 3. Apply the fix.
 4. Watch it pass.
-5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
+5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original, un-narrowed scenario.
 
 ## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/references/feedback-loops.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Constructing and sharpening a feedback loop
+
+A feedback loop is a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug. Build the right one and the bug is 90% fixed. This file covers the whole arc: building a loop, sharpening one you already have, and escalating when the bug resists reproduction.
+
+## Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+
+1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
+2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
+3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
+4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
+5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
+6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
+7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
+8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
+9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `assets/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+
+## Iterate on the loop itself
+
+Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
+
+- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
+- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
+- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
+
+A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. A 2-second deterministic loop is a debugging superpower.
+
+## Intermittent bugs — raise the reproduction rate
+
+If the loop only sometimes fails, the goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
+
+## When you genuinely cannot build a loop
+
+Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for:
+
+- access to whatever environment reproduces it,
+- a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or
+- permission to add temporary production instrumentation.
+
+Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop. A hypothesis you cannot falsify against a signal is a guess, and the fix that follows it is unverifiable.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/diagnose/references/regression-seams.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Judging a regression-test seam
+
+Read this when Phase 5 leaves you unsure whether the seam available for the regression test is the correct one — either because the obvious seam looks shallow, or because there appears to be no seam at all.
+
+## What makes a seam correct
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site: the same entry point, the same participants, the same ordering, and the same state the real caller holds when it goes wrong.
+
+## Seams that are too shallow
+
+- A single-caller test when the bug only appears with multiple callers.
+- A unit test that cannot replicate the chain of calls that triggered the bug.
+- A test that reproduces the symptom by construction — asserting on a value the test itself set — rather than by driving the code path that produces it.
+- A test that mocks out the collaborator the bug actually lives in.
+
+A regression test at a shallow seam gives false confidence. It passes forever, including after a change reintroduces the bug at the real call site, and it will be read by the next maintainer as proof the bug is locked down.
+
+## When there is no correct seam
+
+Do not force one, and do not settle for a shallow seam to have something green. Instead:
+
+1. Apply the fix and verify it against the Phase 1 loop directly.
+2. Write down which seams you considered and why each was too shallow.
+3. Carry that into Phase 6's "what would have prevented this bug" question. A missing seam is an architecture finding — tangled callers, hidden coupling, or a module with no testable boundary — and the handoff is the `improve-codebase-architecture` skill, with those specifics attached.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/grill-me/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# grill-me
+
+Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until the decision tree is fully resolved.
+
+## What it does
+
+Turns the agent into an interviewer rather than an implementer. It walks the design tree branch by branch, resolving dependencies between decisions one at a time, and offers its own recommended answer alongside each question so the user has something concrete to push against. Two rules give it its shape: **one question at a time**, and **never ask what the codebase can answer** — if a question is settleable by reading the code, the agent goes and reads the code instead of spending the user's attention on it.
+
+## Composition
+
+This is the plain grilling loop, with no documentation side effects. The sibling `grill-with-docs` skill runs the same interview but additionally challenges answers against the project's `CONTEXT.md` glossary and existing ADRs, and writes decisions back into those files as they crystallise. Reach for that one when the project has a domain model worth defending; reach for this one when it does not, or when nothing should be written down yet.
+
+`triage` composes the documented variant, not this one, when an issue needs fleshing out.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/grill-me
+```
+
+Describe the plan or design to be stress-tested. Expect questions one at a time, each with a recommended answer.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — the interview instruction, the one-question-at-a-time rule, and the explore-instead-of-asking rule |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: grill-me
-description: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".
+description: >
+  Use when the user says "grill me" or wants a plan or design stress-tested by
+  relentless interview — one question at a time, down each branch of the
+  decision tree. Not a plan to challenge against `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs ->
+  `grill-with-docs`.
 ---
 
 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.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/grill-with-docs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# grill-with-docs
+
+The grilling interview, run against the project's domain model — and writing decisions back into `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs as they land.
+
+## What it does
+
+Runs the same relentless one-question-at-a-time interview as `grill-me`, with the project's own documentation as an active participant. During codebase exploration it also locates the domain documentation — a root `CONTEXT.md` and `docs/adr/`, or a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` pointing at per-context glossaries and ADR directories in a multi-context repo — and then uses it five ways:
+
+- **Challenges terms against the glossary.** When the user's usage conflicts with what `CONTEXT.md` already defines, that is raised immediately rather than absorbed.
+- **Sharpens fuzzy language** by proposing a precise canonical term ("you're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User?").
+- **Stress-tests domain relationships with concrete scenarios**, inventing edge cases that force the user to be precise about where one concept ends and the next begins.
+- **Cross-references claims against the code**, and surfaces contradictions between what the user says happens and what the code does.
+- **Updates `CONTEXT.md` inline**, the moment a term is resolved, rather than batching changes to the end of the session where they get lost.
+
+Files are created lazily — only when there is something real to write.
+
+ADRs are offered *sparingly*, and only when all three tests pass: the decision is hard to reverse, it would surprise a future reader without the context, and it was a genuine trade-off with real alternatives. Missing any one of the three means no ADR.
+
+## Composition
+
+`grill-me` is the same interview without the documentation side effects — use it when there is no domain model to defend or nothing should be written down yet. `triage` composes this skill (not `grill-me`) at step 4 when an issue needs fleshing out. `improve-codebase-architecture` runs its own grilling loop and borrows this skill's `CONTEXT.md` and ADR discipline for the decisions that come out of it.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/grill-with-docs
+```
+
+Describe the plan or design. Expect questions one at a time, each with a recommended answer, and expect `CONTEXT.md` to be edited during the session rather than after it.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The interview instruction plus the domain-awareness rules: file layout discovery, the five during-session behaviours, and the three-part ADR test |
+| `CONTEXT-FORMAT.md` | Skill-root document, cited when a term is resolved: the structure of a `CONTEXT.md` and how to write a Language entry |
+| `ADR-FORMAT.md` | Skill-root document, cited when an ADR is offered: `docs/adr/` naming, sequential numbering, and the ADR template |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: grill-with-docs
-description: Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
+description: >
+  Use when a plan should be stress-tested against the project's domain model —
+  the interview challenges terms against `CONTEXT.md` and writes decisions into
+  it and into ADRs as they land. Not a plain interview -> `grill-me`.
 ---
 
 <what-to-do>

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# improve-codebase-architecture
+
+Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones.
+
+## What it does
+
+Looks for places where a codebase is hard to understand, hard to test, or hard for an agent to navigate, and proposes refactors that concentrate behaviour behind smaller interfaces. It runs in three stages:
+
+1. **Explore.** Reads the domain glossary and any ADRs in the area first, then walks the codebase with an `Explore` sub-agent — organically, noting friction rather than applying fixed heuristics. The **deletion test** is the filter: imagine deleting the module; if complexity vanishes it was a pass-through, if complexity reappears across N callers it was earning its keep.
+2. **Present candidates.** A numbered list, each with files, problem, solution and benefits — benefits stated in terms of *locality* and *leverage* and of how tests would improve. No interfaces are proposed yet; the user picks one.
+3. **Grilling loop.** Walks the design tree for the chosen candidate, with documentation side effects landing inline as decisions crystallise.
+
+The skill is opinionated about vocabulary, and that is the point: **module, interface, implementation, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality**, used exactly, with no drift into "component", "service", "API" or "boundary". Domain nouns come from `CONTEXT.md`, architecture nouns from `LANGUAGE.md` — so a proposal reads as "the Order intake module", never "the FooBarHandler".
+
+ADRs are treated as decisions not to be re-litigated. A candidate that contradicts one is surfaced only when the friction is real enough to warrant reopening it, and is marked as such.
+
+## Composition
+
+`diagnose` hands off here when a bug's post-mortem concludes that no correct test seam exists, or that callers are tangled — the recommendation is made after the fix is in, not before. The grilling loop follows `grill-with-docs`'s discipline for `CONTEXT.md` entries and ADR offers, and `SKILL.md` names that skill's format documents directly.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/improve-codebase-architecture
+```
+
+Point at a codebase or an area of one. Expect a numbered candidate list and a "which of these would you like to explore?" before any interface design happens.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | Condensed glossary, key principles, and the three-stage process |
+| `LANGUAGE.md` | Skill-root document, cited throughout `SKILL.md`: full definitions of every term, the words each one replaces, and the full principle list |
+| `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md` | Skill-root document, read at stage 3 when the user wants alternative interfaces explored: the parallel sub-agent "Design It Twice" pattern, framing the problem space, and the per-agent design constraints |
+| `DEEPENING.md` | Skill-root document, cited from `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md`: how to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, the four dependency categories (in-process, local-substitutable, remote-but-owned, true external), seam discipline, and the replace-don't-layer testing strategy |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
 ---
 name: improve-codebase-architecture
-description: Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring
+  opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more
+  testable and AI-navigable — deepening opportunities that turn shallow modules
+  into deep ones, informed by `CONTEXT.md` and `docs/adr/`. Not debugging a
+  failure -> `diagnose`.
 ---
 
 # Improve Codebase Architecture
@@ -9,7 +14,7 @@ Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refac
 
 ## Glossary
 
-Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Full definitions in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md).
+Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."
 
 - **Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, package, slice).
 - **Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, invariants, error modes, ordering, config. Not just the type signature.
@@ -20,12 +25,14 @@ Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point
 - **Leverage** — what callers get from depth.
 - **Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.
 
-Key principles (see [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) for the full list):
+Key principles:
 
 - **Deletion test**: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
 - **The interface is the test surface.**
 - **One adapter = hypothetical seam. Two adapters = real seam.**
 
+If a term or principle above is ambiguous in the case in front of you, or you need the definitions and the principles the two lists leave out, read `LANGUAGE.md`.
+
 This skill is _informed_ by the project's domain model. The domain language gives names to good seams; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate.
 
 ## Process
@@ -53,7 +60,7 @@ Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
 - **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
 - **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
 
-**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
+**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the architecture glossary above for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
 
 **ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
 
@@ -65,7 +72,7 @@ Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the des
 
 Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:
 
-- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/grill-with-docs` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md)). Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
+- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `grill-with-docs`, in the format `grill-with-docs`'s `CONTEXT-FORMAT.md` defines. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
 - **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
-- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See [ADR-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md).
-- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).
+- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See `grill-with-docs`'s `ADR-FORMAT.md`.
+- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Read `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md`.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# prototype
+
+Build a throwaway prototype that answers one design question — either a runnable terminal app or several UI variations.
+
+## What it does
+
+Treats a prototype as **throwaway code that answers a question**, and lets the question decide the artifact. `SKILL.md` opens with a two-row dispatch table and the run resolves exactly one row before doing anything else:
+
+- *"Does this logic / state model feel right?"* → a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through the cases that are hard to reason about on paper.
+- *"What should this look like?"* → several radically different UI variations on one route, switchable from a floating bottom bar via a URL search param.
+
+The two branches produce fundamentally different artifacts, so picking wrong wastes the whole prototype. When the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user is unreachable, the skill defaults on the shape of the surrounding code (backend module → logic, page or component → UI) and states the assumption at the top of the prototype rather than silently choosing.
+
+Six rules apply to both branches: throwaway and visibly named as such, one command to run, no persistence by default, no polish, surface the full state after every action or variant switch, and delete or absorb the prototype when it is done. The *answer* is the only durable output — the skill captures it in a commit message, ADR, issue or `NOTES.md` before the code is deleted.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/prototype
+```
+
+State the design question. For production code, use `tdd`; for talking a design through without building anything, use `grill-me`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The branch dispatch table and the rules that apply to both branches |
+| `references/logic.md` | The logic branch, read only when that row is selected: when it is the right shape, and how to build the interactive terminal app |
+| `references/ui.md` | The UI branch, read only when that row is selected: when it is the right shape, and how to build and switch between the variations |
+
+Each reference is self-contained — a run reads one of the two, never both.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: prototype
-description: Build a throwaway prototype to flush out a design before committing to it. Routes between two branches — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations toggleable from one route. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a data model or state machine, mock up a UI, explore design options, or says "prototype this", "let me play with it", "try a few designs".
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants a throwaway prototype to answer a design question about
+  a data model, state machine or business logic, or to mock up a UI in several
+  variations. Not production code -> `tdd`. Not talking a design through ->
+  `grill-me`.
 ---
 
 # Prototype
@@ -9,10 +13,12 @@ A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides
 
 ## Pick a branch
 
-Identify which question is being answered — from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:
+| Question being answered | Build | Reference |
+|---|---|---|
+| "Does this logic / state model feel right?" | A tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper | `references/logic.md` |
+| "What should this look like?" | Several radically different UI variations on one route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar | `references/ui.md` |
 
-- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper.
-- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.
+Resolve the row from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around, then read only that reference — each is self-contained.
 
 The two branches produce fundamentally different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/references/logic.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ A tiny interactive terminal app that lets the user drive a state model by hand.
 - "I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it."
 - Anything where the user wants to **press buttons and watch state change**.
 
-If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md).
+If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Read `references/ui.md`.
 
 ## Process
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/prototype/references/ui.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Generate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.
 
-If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).
+If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Read `references/logic.md`.
 
 ## When this is the right shape
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/research/META.md

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-```yaml
-version: "1.1"
-updated: 2026-06-21
-
-when: >-
-  Invoked when the user wants to gather structured reference documentation for a
-  tool, library, or API from MCP documentation indexes or web sources. Typically
-  run before writing a new skill that wraps an external tool, or any time
-  reference files are needed for a topic. Triggered explicitly
-  ("/research <topic> <path>") or implicitly when the user asks to look up,
-  gather, or pull docs for a topic before implementing something.
-
-references:
-  - .agents/skills/context7-mcp/SKILL.md  # context7-mcp — MCP source channel integrated at step 2
-```

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/research/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# research
+
+Research a tool, library or API from canonical documentation into a directory of structured per-topic reference files.
+
+## What it does
+
+Runs a six-step pipeline: scope against the working directory (what version is actually in use, what is already documented), resolve the topic through Context7, websearch for canonical docs covering whatever Context7 missed, read those sources, deepen one level into the links worth following, then write one markdown file per topic area plus a `sources.md` provenance record.
+
+Four gotchas at the top of `SKILL.md` shape the whole run, and each exists because of a specific failure: the output path is never inferred (a guessed destination scatters a directory's worth of files through someone's source tree); nothing is written outside that path; no empty topic file is ever written (a stub `troubleshooting.md` reads downstream as researched and closed); and a Context7 "no results", redirect or header-only response does not count as coverage. If no topic area has content, the run writes nothing at all — `sources.md` included — and reports what it searched.
+
+The frontmatter pins `model: sonnet` and a closed `allowed-tools` list. Notably it grants no subagent tool, so every `WebFetch` is serial and each fetched page lands in the run's own context — which is why steps 4 and 5 insist on reducing each page to notes before fetching the next, and cap deepening at roughly ten extra pages.
+
+## Composition
+
+Both reference files are read on condition, never on every run — `SKILL.md` inlines the minimum each step needs (the seven default topic areas at step 1, the four `sources.md` field names and the topic-file frontmatter keys at step 6) and sends the run to the reference only for what it does not carry. Those four field names are matched literally by the downstream provenance validator, so prose written in their place parses as nothing and the check passes having verified nothing — which is why they are inlined rather than deferred.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/research
+```
+
+Name the topic and the output path — the skill will stop and ask if the path is missing. Supplying starting URLs is treated as a deliberate source choice and skips Context7 resolution and discovery. For documentation derived from existing code or specs, use `write-docs`; for a bug or incident, use `diagnose`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The four gotchas and the six research steps |
+| `references/topics.md` | Read at Step 1 only when what belongs in a default topic is unclear or a custom topic is needed: the per-topic coverage table and the custom-topic naming rule |
+| `references/file-format.md` | Read at Step 6 only when the inlined field names do not settle the case: slug derivation, the Context7 slug and URL convention, and what belongs in a topic body |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/research/SKILL.md

@@ -1,97 +1,78 @@
 ---
 name: research
 description: >-
-  Use when the user wants to research a topic and generate structured reference
-  markdown files. Handles: finding canonical docs for a tool/library/API via
-  Context7 MCP or web sources, reading and deepening into linked pages,
-  organizing extracted content into topic files (overview, installation,
-  configuration, cli-reference, api-reference, examples, troubleshooting). Do
-  NOT use when the user wants to write documentation from existing code or specs
-  (use write-docs), install or manage the neuledge-context MCP server (use
-  neuledge-context), or research a bug/incident (use diagnose).
+  Use when the user wants a tool, library, or API researched from canonical
+  documentation into structured per-topic reference markdown files. Not
+  documentation written from existing code or specs -> `write-docs`. Not a bug
+  or incident -> `diagnose`.
 metadata:
   category: research
 allowed-tools:
-  - WebSearch
-  - WebFetch
+  - Grep
+  - Glob
   - Read
   - Write
+  - WebSearch
+  - WebFetch
   - mcp__context7__resolve-library-id
   - mcp__context7__query-docs
 model: sonnet
 ---
 
-<requirements>
+## Gotchas
 
-## Required inputs
+- Never infer the output path. A run writes a directory's worth of files, and a guessed destination scatters them through someone's source tree. If the user named no path, stop and ask.
+- Write nothing outside the given output path. A file placed beside the agreed directory is one the user never asked for and will not think to look for.
+- Never write an empty topic file. A stub `troubleshooting.md` reads downstream as researched and closed.
+- A Context7 response that is a "no results" message, a redirect notice, or header-only boilerplate is not coverage. A topic area counts as covered only when the response carries at least one substantive paragraph.
 
-- **Topic** — the subject to research (tool, library, API, concept); inferred from user description if clear, ask if ambiguous
-- **Output path** — directory where reference files will be written; must be provided explicitly — do not infer or default
-- **Starting URLs** — optional; if provided, skip discovery websearch and read these first
+## Step 1 — Scope against the working directory
 
-## Constraints
+Search for existing use of the topic — imports, config files, version pins, reference files already written — and narrow the research to what is missing: the version actually in use, the topics not yet documented.
 
-- Never write files outside the explicitly provided output path
-- Skip any default topic file if no relevant content is found for it — do not create empty files
-- Create additional topic files beyond the default list when content warrants it (e.g. `webhooks.md`, `rate-limits.md`)
-- Subagents handle parallel source reading and link deepening — the orchestrator writes all files; subagents return summaries only, never write directly
-- Context7 MCP calls (`resolve-library-id`, `query-docs`) are made only by the orchestrator at step 2 — subagents must not call them
-- `sources.md` is always written, even if only one source was read
-- Each topic file must have frontmatter with `topic` and `source_keys`; body is prose only — no inline URLs
-- Source keys in `sources.md` must be kebab-case slugs: derived from the source domain or page title for web sources; for Context7 sources use `context7-<library-slug>` (e.g. `context7-vercel-next-js`)
-- Default topic list and file format spec live in `references/` sub-files — read them at step 1
+The default topic areas are `overview`, `installation`, `configuration`, `cli-reference`,
+`api-reference`, `examples` and `troubleshooting` — one file each, and only where content exists.
+If what belongs in one of them is unclear, or the topic needs a file outside that set, read
+`references/topics.md` for the per-topic coverage table and the custom-topic naming rule.
 
-</requirements>
+## Step 2 — Resolve against Context7
 
-<steps>
+If the topic is a library, framework, or API and the user gave no starting URLs, call `resolve-library-id` with the topic name and the user's full question — match quality depends on the question, not the bare name — then `query-docs` once per default topic area. Record each response as a source with slug `context7-<library-slug>`, and mark which topic areas it covered — those skip the web reads at step 4.
 
-## Process
+If the library does not resolve, or the user gave starting URLs, go to step 3. Explicit URLs are a source choice; do not second-guess them with a resolution attempt.
 
-1. **Scan codebase.** Search the working directory for existing usage of the topic — imports, config files, version pins, existing reference files. Use findings to narrow research scope (e.g. target the version already in use, skip topics already documented). Read `references/topics.md` for the default topic list and `references/file-format.md` for the output file format spec.
+## Step 3 — Discover sources
 
-2. **Try Context7.** If the topic is a library, framework, or API and no starting URLs were provided, call `resolve-library-id` with the topic name and the user's question. If a match resolves, call `query-docs` once per default topic area (see `references/topics.md`). Treat each response as a source summary with slug `context7-<library-slug>` (e.g. `context7-vercel-next-js`). A topic area has sufficient content when the Context7 response contains at least one substantive paragraph — not a "no results" message, redirect notice, or header-only boilerplate. Mark covered topic areas — skip their subagent web reads in step 4. If the library does not resolve, or starting URLs were provided (explicit source choice by the user), skip this step entirely.
+If the user gave starting URLs, skip discovery: those URLs are the source list and go straight to step 4.
 
-3. **Discover sources.** For topics not covered by Context7 (or when no starting URLs were provided and Context7 did not resolve), websearch for canonical documentation (prefer `llms.txt`, developer docs, official API references over tutorials or blog posts). Collect 3–5 candidate URLs before reading any.
+Otherwise, for every topic area Context7 did not cover, websearch for canonical documentation — `llms.txt`, official developer docs, and API references ahead of tutorials or blog posts. Collect three to five candidate URLs before reading any of them.
 
-4. **Read sources in parallel.** Spawn one subagent per source URL. Each subagent fetches the page, extracts relevant content, identifies links worth deepening, and returns a structured summary (content by topic area + links to follow). Subagents do not write files.
+If nothing usable comes back, stop and report what was searched, then ask for starting URLs rather than settling for tutorials.
 
-5. **Deepen.** For each subagent that returned links worth following, spawn child subagents per branch. Continue until content becomes repetitive or out of scope. Cap at ~10 additional pages total across all branches.
+## Step 4 — Read the sources
 
-6. **Consolidate.** Merge all subagent summaries (Context7 and web) by topic area. Identify which default topics have sufficient content and which custom topics emerged.
+`WebFetch` each URL in turn. No subagent tool is granted here, so the reads are serial and every fetched page lands in this context: reduce each page to notes by topic area, plus the links worth deepening, before fetching the next one.
 
-7. **Write topic files.** For each topic with content, write `<output-path>/<topic>.md` using the format in `references/file-format.md`. Orchestrator writes all files — never delegate file writing to a subagent.
+## Step 5 — Deepen
 
-8. **Write `sources.md`.** Write `<output-path>/sources.md` mapping each source slug to its URL (use `context7:<library-id>` as the URL for Context7 sources), description, and list of topic files it contributed to. Include sources that yielded no content, marked `no content extracted`.
+`WebFetch` the links worth following, still one at a time and still reducing each page to notes. Stop a branch once its content turns repetitive or leaves the topic, and cap the whole step at roughly ten additional pages — serial reads make that cap a real budget, not a formality.
 
-## Output format
+## Step 6 — Write
 
-- `<output-path>/<topic>.md` per topic with content — formatted per `references/file-format.md`
-- `<output-path>/sources.md` — always produced; maps slug → URL, description, contributing files
+Merge every set of notes, Context7 and web alike, by topic area, then write, in the output path:
 
-</steps>
+- `<topic>.md` for each topic area that has content, default or custom. Frontmatter carries `topic:` (the filename without `.md`) and `source_keys:` (kebab-case slugs matching `sources.md`); the body is prose in `##` sections, with no inline URLs.
+- `sources.md`, always, one `##` section per source — including sources that yielded nothing — with exactly these four fields:
 
-<checks>
+  ```markdown
+  - **URL:** <full URL>
+  - **Description:** <one-line summary>
+  - **Contributing files:** <topic files this source contributed to>
+  - **Status:** `extracted` | `no content extracted`
+  ```
 
-## Failure handling
+Spell those four field names exactly as given. The downstream provenance validator matches them literally; prose in their place parses as nothing, and the check passes having verified nothing.
 
-- Output path not provided — stop and ask; do not infer or default
-- No sources found after websearch — report what was searched, ask user to provide starting URLs
-- Subagent returns no usable content — skip that source, log in `sources.md` as `no content extracted`
-- All topic files would be empty — stop, report what was searched, do not write any files
+Read `references/file-format.md` when the four fields above do not settle the case: what a slug should be, the `context7-<library-slug>` slug and `context7:<library-id>` URL convention for a Context7 source, or what belongs in a topic body versus a verbatim copy of the source.
 
-## Self-check
-
-- [ ] Codebase scanned before any websearch was performed
-- [ ] Output path was explicitly provided — not inferred
-- [ ] `references/topics.md` and `references/file-format.md` read at step 1
-- [ ] Context7 resolution attempted before websearch when topic is a library/framework/API
-- [ ] Context7 calls made only at orchestrator step 2 — no subagent called `resolve-library-id` or `query-docs`
-- [ ] Context7 sources recorded in `sources.md` with `context7:<library-id>` as URL
-- [ ] No topic file written without content
-- [ ] `sources.md` written with all sources read (including those with no content extracted)
-- [ ] All file writes performed by the orchestrator, not subagents
-- [ ] Each topic file has `topic` and `source_keys` frontmatter fields
-- [ ] All source keys in topic files have a matching entry in `sources.md`
-- [ ] No files written outside the provided output path
-
-</checks>
+If no topic area has content, write nothing at all, `sources.md` included, and report what was searched.

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/tdd/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# tdd
+
+Test-driven development as a strict red-green-refactor loop, one behaviour at a time.
+
+## What it does
+
+Two convictions drive this skill. The first is about what a test is for: tests verify behaviour through public interfaces, not implementation details. A good test reads like a specification ("user can checkout with valid cart") and survives refactors because it does not care about internal structure. The warning sign for a bad one is precise — the test breaks when you refactor but behaviour has not changed.
+
+The second is an explicit anti-pattern: **do not write all the tests first, then all the implementation.** Horizontal slicing treats RED as "write every test" and GREEN as "write every implementation", and it produces tests of *imagined* behaviour — tests of the shape of things, insensitive to real change, committed to before the implementation was understood. The correct shape is vertical: one test → one implementation → repeat, each cycle informed by what the last one taught you.
+
+The workflow is four stages: plan (confirm the interface and which behaviours matter, with the user — you cannot test everything), fire a tracer bullet (one test proving the path works end to end), loop incrementally one behaviour at a time, then refactor once everything is green. Refactoring while RED is forbidden.
+
+Codebase exploration uses the project's domain glossary, so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and ADRs in the area are respected.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/tdd
+```
+
+Describe the feature or bug. Expect the skill to ask what the public interface should look like and which behaviours matter most before any code is written. For diagnosing an existing bug rather than building test-first, use `diagnose`; for throwaway exploratory code, use `prototype`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | Philosophy, the horizontal-slicing anti-pattern, the four-stage workflow, and the per-cycle checklist |
+| `tests.md` | Skill-root document, cited from Philosophy: worked good and bad test examples |
+| `mocking.md` | Skill-root document, cited from Philosophy: mock at system boundaries only, and what not to mock |
+| `deep-modules.md` | Skill-root document, cited from stage 1: what a deep module is (small interface, large implementation) and why it is the design to aim for |
+| `interface-design.md` | Skill-root document, cited from stage 1: designing interfaces for testability, starting with accepting dependencies rather than creating them |
+| `refactoring.md` | Skill-root document, cited from stage 4: the refactor-candidate checklist — duplication, long methods, shallow modules, feature envy, primitive obsession |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: tdd
-description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants a feature built or a bug fixed test-first, in a strict
+  red-green-refactor loop, one behaviour at a time. Not diagnosing an existing
+  bug -> `diagnose`. Not throwaway exploratory code -> `prototype`.
 ---
 
 # Test-Driven Development
@@ -13,7 +16,7 @@ description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user
 
 **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.
 
-See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+If you need worked examples of the difference — a behaviour-level test beside the implementation-coupled version of the same check — read `tests.md`. If a test needs a collaborator faked, read `mocking.md` before reaching for a mock.
 
 ## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Writing Agent Briefs
 
-An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue 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.
+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
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent w
 
 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:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **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

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# triage
+
+Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.
+
+## What it does
+
+Gives issue triage an explicit state model and a fixed set of moves. Every issue carries exactly one **category** role (`bug`, `enhancement`) and one **state** role (`needs-triage`, `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, `wontfix`); conflicting state roles are flagged to the maintainer before anything else happens. Unlabeled issues normally enter at `needs-triage`; `needs-info` returns there once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any point, and unusual transitions are questioned rather than executed silently.
+
+A run does one of three things depending on what the maintainer asks for:
+
+- **Show what needs attention** — three buckets, oldest first: unlabeled, `needs-triage`, and `needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes.
+- **Triage a specific issue** — gather context (including prior triage notes, so resolved questions are not re-asked, and `.out-of-scope/` records that resemble the issue), recommend a category and state with reasoning, attempt reproduction for bugs *before* any grilling, run a `grill-with-docs` session if the issue needs fleshing out, then apply the outcome.
+- **Quick state override** — "move #42 to ready-for-agent" is trusted and applied directly, skipping grilling, after confirming the exact changes.
+
+Two hard rules: every comment or issue the skill posts during triage must open with the AI-generated disclaimer, and the canonical role names above are *not* necessarily the label strings in the tracker — each is resolved against the tracker's live label set before it is applied, and a name with no counterpart there is reported to the maintainer as a gap rather than guessed at.
+
+## Composition
+
+`grill-with-docs` is invoked at step 4 when an issue needs fleshing out; whatever that session establishes is carried into the triage notes so the work is not lost. The reverse direction also exists: `diagnose` names this skill as the place to send a *reported* bug that needs filing rather than debugging.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/triage
+```
+
+Then describe what you want in natural language — "show me anything that needs my attention", "let's look at #42", "move #42 to ready-for-agent", "what's ready for agents to pick up?".
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The roles and state machine, the three invocation modes, the needs-info template, and how to resume a prior session |
+| `AGENT-BRIEF.md` | Skill-root document, cited when an issue moves to `ready-for-agent` (and reused for `ready-for-human`): how to write a brief that stays durable for weeks while the codebase moves under it — describe interfaces and behavioural contracts, not line numbers |
+| `OUT-OF-SCOPE.md` | Skill-root document, cited when an enhancement is closed `wontfix` and when checking for prior rejections: how the `.out-of-scope/` knowledge base is laid out and what it is for — institutional memory, and deduplication against re-litigated requests |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: triage
-description: Triage issues through a state machine driven by triage roles. Use when user wants to create an issue, triage issues, review incoming bugs or feature requests, prepare issues for an AFK agent, or manage issue workflow.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants an issue created, triaged, or moved through the
+  tracker's triage states, or an issue prepared for an AFK agent. Not debugging
+  the bug itself -> `diagnose`. Not fleshing out a design -> `grill-with-docs`.
 ---
 
 # Triage
@@ -35,7 +38,7 @@ Five **state** roles:
 
 Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
 
-These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. Resolve each canonical name against the tracker's live label set before applying it, using whichever tracker skill this install provides. If a name has no counterpart there, report the gap and ask the maintainer for the mapping — never substitute a guess.
 
 State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time — flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/write-docs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# write-docs
+
+Produce technical documentation derived from code and spec, one section at a time, with a confirmation gate on every section.
+
+## What it does
+
+Casts the agent as a technical writer with one non-negotiable constraint: **every claim must be traceable to a source file line, a spec section, or an explicit user statement.** Nothing is invented, and behaviour that genuinely cannot be documented from the available sources is marked out-of-scope rather than explained away.
+
+The process is eight steps — identify scope, read and extract, gap check, draft section by section, confirmation gate, delta summary, reader testing, finalise — and several of them are deliberately gated on the human:
+
+- Files are read only after the user approves them by name. The skill may propose candidates; it waits.
+- The **gap check** presents what the code does say and asks the user to fill only what it does not: caller intent, error-handling rationale, non-obvious side effects.
+- No section is finalised until the full revised text has been shown. The skill never gates on output the user has not seen, and never reprints the whole document — all edits are surgical.
+- **Reader testing** predicts 5–10 questions a target reader would ask, then spawns a sub-agent that receives only the finished doc and the questions — no source files. If the doc cannot answer them, neither can the sub-agent, and the run loops back to drafting.
+
+Summary and overview sections are written last, once the detail sections are stable.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/write-docs
+```
+
+Name the files or modules to document, the target audience (developer / user / contributor / internal), and the documentation type (reference, guide, README section, inline comment, changelog entry). For a PRD, ADR or decision doc, use `grill-me` or `grill-with-docs` instead — those have dedicated handling.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — role, use/do-not-use boundaries, required inputs, constraints, the eight-step process, output format, failure handling, and a nine-item self-check |

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/write-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
 ---
 name: write-docs
-description: Write documentation for X, document this module, create docs for this feature. Use when the user wants to produce or update technical documentation derived from code, spec, or existing artifacts. Do NOT use when the user wants a PRD, ADR, decision doc, or skill file — those have dedicated skills.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants technical documentation produced or updated from code
+  or spec, every claim traced to a source — "write docs for X", "document this
+  module", "create docs for this feature", "write a README for this". Not an ADR
+  or other decision record -> `grill-with-docs`. Not an external tool researched
+  from its docs -> `research`.
 version: "1.0"
 updated: 2026-05-17
 when: invoked by explicit trigger ("write docs for X", "document this module", "create docs for this feature") or implicit request to produce technical documentation from code or spec
@@ -35,7 +40,8 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - User says "write docs for X", "document this", "create docs for this feature", "write a README for this"
 
 **Do not use when:**
-- User wants a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `to-prd` or `grill-me`
+- User wants an ADR, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `grill-with-docs`, which writes ADRs
+- User wants a PRD → no skill in this set produces one; say so rather than redirecting
 - User wants to document a skill file (skill files are self-describing)
 - User wants marketing or blog copy
 - Documentation requires tacit organisational knowledge that cannot be read from code or spec
@@ -88,7 +94,7 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - Stage skipped without a logged reason → flag and require the one-sentence log before continuing
 - Code behaviour is undocumentable (internal implementation detail, no public spec) → note as out-of-scope in the doc; do not invent an explanation
 - Reader Testing sub-agent fails on multiple questions → surface the failures, return to step 4; do not mark complete
-- Requested output is a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `to-prd`, `grill-me`, or `grill-with-docs`
+- Requested output is an ADR, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `grill-with-docs`; for a PRD, say no skill here produces one instead of redirecting
 
 ## Self-check
 

plugins/bin/.apm/skills/zoom-out/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# zoom-out
+
+Ask the agent to go up a layer of abstraction and map the modules and callers around unfamiliar code.
+
+## What it does
+
+A single-purpose prompt for the moment you land in a part of the codebase you do not know. Instead of answering at the level of the file in front of it, the agent climbs one layer and produces a map of the relevant modules and their callers — and names them using the project's own domain glossary vocabulary, so the map lines up with the language the rest of the repo already uses.
+
+## Hand-invoked only
+
+`SKILL.md` sets `disable-model-invocation: true`, so the router never selects this skill on its own and no other skill can hand off to it. It runs when the human asks for it. That also means its description is written as one plain human-facing sentence — it carries no trigger phrasing or boundary clause, because nothing routes on it.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/zoom-out
+```
+
+Best used with the unfamiliar code already in context — the skill widens the view around what you are looking at rather than picking a starting point for you.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — a single instruction, no supporting files |

plugins/bin/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "bin",
-  "version": "1.1.5",
+  "version": "1.1.6",
   "description": "Skills for everyday AI-assisted development work that is not tied to a single tool, forge or language, and has not yet been split into a focused plugin.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Defame1297",

plugins/bin/.github/plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "bin",
-  "version": "1.1.5",
+  "version": "1.1.6",
   "description": "Skills for everyday AI-assisted development work that is not tied to a single tool, forge or language, and has not yet been split into a focused plugin.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Defame1297",

plugins/bin/apm.yml

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 name: bin
-version: 1.1.5
+version: 1.1.6
 description: Skills for everyday AI-assisted development work that is not tied to a single tool, forge or language, and has not yet been split into a focused plugin.
 author:
   name: Defame1297

plugins/bin/evals/research/research/eval.yaml

@@ -26,11 +26,6 @@ trigger_tests:
     query: "Research why these integration tests are failing"
     should_trigger: false
 
-  - id: negative-neuledge
-    name: "Negative — MCP server setup goes to neuledge-context"
-    query: "Install the neuledge context server and set it up"
-    should_trigger: false
-
   - id: negative-context7-direct-question
     name: "Negative — direct doc question goes to context7-mcp, not research"
     query: "What are the Next.js middleware options?"

plugins/bin/skills/caveman/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# caveman
+
+Ultra-compressed output mode: drop articles, filler and pleasantries, keep the technical substance exact.
+
+## What it does
+
+Switches the agent into a terse register — no articles, no hedging, no pleasantries, fragments allowed, arrows for causality — while leaving technical terms, code blocks and quoted error strings untouched. The mode is *sticky*: once turned on it stays on for every subsequent response until the user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode", rather than decaying back to normal prose after a few turns.
+
+It carries one built-in escape hatch. Security warnings, confirmations for irreversible actions, multi-step sequences where fragment order could be misread, and any request to clarify are answered in normal prose, then the compressed register resumes.
+
+## Hand-invoked only
+
+`SKILL.md` sets `disable-model-invocation: true`. This is the single most important thing to know about this skill: **the model cannot route to it.** No other skill can hand off to it, and no phrasing in a user's request will cause it to be selected automatically. The only way in is the human typing `/caveman`.
+
+That is deliberate — output style is the user's choice, not an inference the router should make on their behalf. It is also why the description reads as one plain human-facing sentence rather than carrying the trigger phrasing and boundary clause a routable skill needs.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/caveman
+```
+
+Then keep working normally. To leave the mode, say "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — persistence rule, compression rules, worked examples, and the auto-clarity exception |

plugins/bin/skills/caveman/SKILL.md

@@ -1,17 +1,16 @@
 ---
 name: caveman
+disable-model-invocation: true
 description: >
-  Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by dropping
-  filler, articles, and pleasantries while keeping full technical accuracy.
-  Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman",
-  "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman.
+  Ultra-compressed output mode that drops articles, filler and pleasantries while
+  keeping technical substance exact, cutting token usage by roughly 75%.
 ---
 
 Respond terse like smart caveman. All technical substance stay. Only fluff die.
 
 ## Persistence
 
-ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once triggered. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
+ACTIVE EVERY RESPONSE once user type `/caveman`. No revert after many turns. No filler drift. Still active if unsure. Off only when user says "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
 
 ## Rules
 

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# diagnose
+
+A six-phase discipline for hard bugs and performance regressions: feedback loop → reproduce → hypothesise → instrument → fix with a regression test → clean up.
+
+## What it does
+
+Imposes an order of operations on debugging so the agent cannot skip to guessing. The load-bearing phase is the first one: build a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug. Everything downstream — bisection, hypothesis testing, instrumentation — just consumes that signal, so the skill refuses to advance to Phase 2 without one, and says so explicitly rather than hypothesising blind.
+
+The remaining phases each carry a constraint worth knowing about: hypotheses are generated 3–5 at a time and must be falsifiable, so the first plausible idea cannot anchor the whole investigation; every debug log is tagged with a unique prefix (`[DEBUG-a4f2]`) so cleanup is a single grep; the regression test is written before the fix and only at a seam that exercises the real bug pattern; and the run closes by asking what would have prevented the bug, handing off to `improve-codebase-architecture` when the answer is architectural.
+
+Performance regressions take a branch of their own inside Phase 4 — baseline measurement and bisection, not logs.
+
+## Conditional reading
+
+Neither reference file is read on every run; `SKILL.md` names the condition for each.
+
+- `references/feedback-loops.md` is read when Phase 1 has no signal yet, or when the loop you have is slow or intermittent.
+- `references/regression-seams.md` is read when Phase 5 leaves you unsure whether the available seam is deep enough — or whether one exists at all.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/diagnose
+```
+
+Describe the bug or the regression. For filing and triaging a reported bug rather than diagnosing it, use `triage`; for test-first feature work, use `tdd`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The six phases and their gates — what must be true before each one ends |
+| `references/feedback-loops.md` | Loaded when Phase 1 has no loop or the loop is too weak: ten ways to construct one ordered by cost, how to sharpen an existing loop, handling intermittent bugs, and what to ask the user for when the bug resists reproduction |
+| `references/regression-seams.md` | Loaded when Phase 5 is unsure about the seam: what makes a seam correct, the four shapes of a too-shallow seam, and what to do when no correct seam exists |
+| `assets/hitl-loop.template.sh` | Copy-and-edit bash template for the last-resort human-in-the-loop feedback loop, cited by `references/feedback-loops.md`. Provides `step` and `capture` helpers and prints captured values as `KEY=VALUE` for the agent to parse |

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: diagnose
-description: Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Reproduce → minimise → hypothesise → instrument → fix → regression-test. Use when user says "diagnose this" / "debug this", reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, or describes a performance regression.
+description: >
+  Use when the user says "diagnose this" or "debug this", reports something
+  broken, throwing, or failing, or says something got slow. Not filing or
+  triaging a reported bug -> `triage`. Not test-first feature work -> `tdd`.
 ---
 
 # Diagnose
@@ -15,40 +18,11 @@ When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary to get a clear me
 
 Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
 
-### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+**If you do not yet have such a signal, read `references/feedback-loops.md`** — ten ways to build one ordered by cost, and what to ask the user for when the bug resists reproduction entirely.
 
-1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
-2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
-3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
-4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
-5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
-6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
-7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
-8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
-9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
-10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+**If you do have one, it is probably not sharp enough yet.** Make it faster and more deterministic, and make it assert on the exact symptom rather than "didn't crash" — a 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. If it stays slow or intermittent after that, read that file's "Iterate on the loop itself" and "Intermittent bugs" sections.
 
-Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
-
-### Iterate on the loop itself
-
-Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
-
-- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
-- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
-- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
-
-A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. A 2-second deterministic loop is a debugging superpower.
-
-### Non-deterministic bugs
-
-The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
-
-### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
-
-Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
-
-Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in.
+Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you have a loop you believe in. If you cannot build one, stop and say so explicitly, listing what you tried — never hypothesise without a signal.
 
 ## Phase 2 — Reproduce
 
@@ -57,7 +31,7 @@ Run the loop. Watch the bug appear.
 Confirm:
 
 - [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
-- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
+- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs. If it is intermittent, `references/feedback-loops.md` defines the rate high enough to debug against — go back to Phase 1 and raise it.
 - [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
 
 Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
@@ -90,19 +64,17 @@ Tool preference:
 
 ## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
 
-Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only at a **correct seam**: one where the test exercises the real bug pattern as it occurs at the call site. If the available seam looks too shallow, or you cannot tell whether it is, read `references/regression-seams.md`.
 
-A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it and carry it into Phase 6 — the architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down.
 
-**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
+At a correct seam:
 
-If a correct seam exists:
-
-1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
+1. Turn the Phase 1 loop into a failing test at that seam, narrowed to the symptom captured in Phase 2.
 2. Watch it fail.
 3. Apply the fix.
 4. Watch it pass.
-5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
+5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original, un-narrowed scenario.
 
 ## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem
 

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/references/feedback-loops.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Constructing and sharpening a feedback loop
+
+A feedback loop is a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug. Build the right one and the bug is 90% fixed. This file covers the whole arc: building a loop, sharpening one you already have, and escalating when the bug resists reproduction.
+
+## Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+
+1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
+2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
+3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
+4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
+5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
+6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
+7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
+8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
+9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `assets/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+
+## Iterate on the loop itself
+
+Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, ask:
+
+- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
+- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
+- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
+
+A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop. A 2-second deterministic loop is a debugging superpower.
+
+## Intermittent bugs — raise the reproduction rate
+
+If the loop only sometimes fails, the goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
+
+## When you genuinely cannot build a loop
+
+Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for:
+
+- access to whatever environment reproduces it,
+- a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or
+- permission to add temporary production instrumentation.
+
+Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop. A hypothesis you cannot falsify against a signal is a guess, and the fix that follows it is unverifiable.

plugins/bin/skills/diagnose/references/regression-seams.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Judging a regression-test seam
+
+Read this when Phase 5 leaves you unsure whether the seam available for the regression test is the correct one — either because the obvious seam looks shallow, or because there appears to be no seam at all.
+
+## What makes a seam correct
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site: the same entry point, the same participants, the same ordering, and the same state the real caller holds when it goes wrong.
+
+## Seams that are too shallow
+
+- A single-caller test when the bug only appears with multiple callers.
+- A unit test that cannot replicate the chain of calls that triggered the bug.
+- A test that reproduces the symptom by construction — asserting on a value the test itself set — rather than by driving the code path that produces it.
+- A test that mocks out the collaborator the bug actually lives in.
+
+A regression test at a shallow seam gives false confidence. It passes forever, including after a change reintroduces the bug at the real call site, and it will be read by the next maintainer as proof the bug is locked down.
+
+## When there is no correct seam
+
+Do not force one, and do not settle for a shallow seam to have something green. Instead:
+
+1. Apply the fix and verify it against the Phase 1 loop directly.
+2. Write down which seams you considered and why each was too shallow.
+3. Carry that into Phase 6's "what would have prevented this bug" question. A missing seam is an architecture finding — tangled callers, hidden coupling, or a module with no testable boundary — and the handoff is the `improve-codebase-architecture` skill, with those specifics attached.

plugins/bin/skills/grill-me/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# grill-me
+
+Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until the decision tree is fully resolved.
+
+## What it does
+
+Turns the agent into an interviewer rather than an implementer. It walks the design tree branch by branch, resolving dependencies between decisions one at a time, and offers its own recommended answer alongside each question so the user has something concrete to push against. Two rules give it its shape: **one question at a time**, and **never ask what the codebase can answer** — if a question is settleable by reading the code, the agent goes and reads the code instead of spending the user's attention on it.
+
+## Composition
+
+This is the plain grilling loop, with no documentation side effects. The sibling `grill-with-docs` skill runs the same interview but additionally challenges answers against the project's `CONTEXT.md` glossary and existing ADRs, and writes decisions back into those files as they crystallise. Reach for that one when the project has a domain model worth defending; reach for this one when it does not, or when nothing should be written down yet.
+
+`triage` composes the documented variant, not this one, when an issue needs fleshing out.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/grill-me
+```
+
+Describe the plan or design to be stress-tested. Expect questions one at a time, each with a recommended answer.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — the interview instruction, the one-question-at-a-time rule, and the explore-instead-of-asking rule |

plugins/bin/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: grill-me
-description: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".
+description: >
+  Use when the user says "grill me" or wants a plan or design stress-tested by
+  relentless interview — one question at a time, down each branch of the
+  decision tree. Not a plan to challenge against `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs ->
+  `grill-with-docs`.
 ---
 
 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.

plugins/bin/skills/grill-with-docs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# grill-with-docs
+
+The grilling interview, run against the project's domain model — and writing decisions back into `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs as they land.
+
+## What it does
+
+Runs the same relentless one-question-at-a-time interview as `grill-me`, with the project's own documentation as an active participant. During codebase exploration it also locates the domain documentation — a root `CONTEXT.md` and `docs/adr/`, or a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` pointing at per-context glossaries and ADR directories in a multi-context repo — and then uses it five ways:
+
+- **Challenges terms against the glossary.** When the user's usage conflicts with what `CONTEXT.md` already defines, that is raised immediately rather than absorbed.
+- **Sharpens fuzzy language** by proposing a precise canonical term ("you're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User?").
+- **Stress-tests domain relationships with concrete scenarios**, inventing edge cases that force the user to be precise about where one concept ends and the next begins.
+- **Cross-references claims against the code**, and surfaces contradictions between what the user says happens and what the code does.
+- **Updates `CONTEXT.md` inline**, the moment a term is resolved, rather than batching changes to the end of the session where they get lost.
+
+Files are created lazily — only when there is something real to write.
+
+ADRs are offered *sparingly*, and only when all three tests pass: the decision is hard to reverse, it would surprise a future reader without the context, and it was a genuine trade-off with real alternatives. Missing any one of the three means no ADR.
+
+## Composition
+
+`grill-me` is the same interview without the documentation side effects — use it when there is no domain model to defend or nothing should be written down yet. `triage` composes this skill (not `grill-me`) at step 4 when an issue needs fleshing out. `improve-codebase-architecture` runs its own grilling loop and borrows this skill's `CONTEXT.md` and ADR discipline for the decisions that come out of it.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/grill-with-docs
+```
+
+Describe the plan or design. Expect questions one at a time, each with a recommended answer, and expect `CONTEXT.md` to be edited during the session rather than after it.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The interview instruction plus the domain-awareness rules: file layout discovery, the five during-session behaviours, and the three-part ADR test |
+| `CONTEXT-FORMAT.md` | Skill-root document, cited when a term is resolved: the structure of a `CONTEXT.md` and how to write a Language entry |
+| `ADR-FORMAT.md` | Skill-root document, cited when an ADR is offered: `docs/adr/` naming, sequential numbering, and the ADR template |

plugins/bin/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: grill-with-docs
-description: Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
+description: >
+  Use when a plan should be stress-tested against the project's domain model —
+  the interview challenges terms against `CONTEXT.md` and writes decisions into
+  it and into ADRs as they land. Not a plain interview -> `grill-me`.
 ---
 
 <what-to-do>

plugins/bin/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# improve-codebase-architecture
+
+Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones.
+
+## What it does
+
+Looks for places where a codebase is hard to understand, hard to test, or hard for an agent to navigate, and proposes refactors that concentrate behaviour behind smaller interfaces. It runs in three stages:
+
+1. **Explore.** Reads the domain glossary and any ADRs in the area first, then walks the codebase with an `Explore` sub-agent — organically, noting friction rather than applying fixed heuristics. The **deletion test** is the filter: imagine deleting the module; if complexity vanishes it was a pass-through, if complexity reappears across N callers it was earning its keep.
+2. **Present candidates.** A numbered list, each with files, problem, solution and benefits — benefits stated in terms of *locality* and *leverage* and of how tests would improve. No interfaces are proposed yet; the user picks one.
+3. **Grilling loop.** Walks the design tree for the chosen candidate, with documentation side effects landing inline as decisions crystallise.
+
+The skill is opinionated about vocabulary, and that is the point: **module, interface, implementation, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality**, used exactly, with no drift into "component", "service", "API" or "boundary". Domain nouns come from `CONTEXT.md`, architecture nouns from `LANGUAGE.md` — so a proposal reads as "the Order intake module", never "the FooBarHandler".
+
+ADRs are treated as decisions not to be re-litigated. A candidate that contradicts one is surfaced only when the friction is real enough to warrant reopening it, and is marked as such.
+
+## Composition
+
+`diagnose` hands off here when a bug's post-mortem concludes that no correct test seam exists, or that callers are tangled — the recommendation is made after the fix is in, not before. The grilling loop follows `grill-with-docs`'s discipline for `CONTEXT.md` entries and ADR offers, and `SKILL.md` names that skill's format documents directly.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/improve-codebase-architecture
+```
+
+Point at a codebase or an area of one. Expect a numbered candidate list and a "which of these would you like to explore?" before any interface design happens.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | Condensed glossary, key principles, and the three-stage process |
+| `LANGUAGE.md` | Skill-root document, cited throughout `SKILL.md`: full definitions of every term, the words each one replaces, and the full principle list |
+| `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md` | Skill-root document, read at stage 3 when the user wants alternative interfaces explored: the parallel sub-agent "Design It Twice" pattern, framing the problem space, and the per-agent design constraints |
+| `DEEPENING.md` | Skill-root document, cited from `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md`: how to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, the four dependency categories (in-process, local-substitutable, remote-but-owned, true external), seam discipline, and the replace-don't-layer testing strategy |

plugins/bin/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
 ---
 name: improve-codebase-architecture
-description: Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring
+  opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more
+  testable and AI-navigable — deepening opportunities that turn shallow modules
+  into deep ones, informed by `CONTEXT.md` and `docs/adr/`. Not debugging a
+  failure -> `diagnose`.
 ---
 
 # Improve Codebase Architecture
@@ -9,7 +14,7 @@ Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refac
 
 ## Glossary
 
-Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Full definitions in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md).
+Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."
 
 - **Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, package, slice).
 - **Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, invariants, error modes, ordering, config. Not just the type signature.
@@ -20,12 +25,14 @@ Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point
 - **Leverage** — what callers get from depth.
 - **Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.
 
-Key principles (see [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) for the full list):
+Key principles:
 
 - **Deletion test**: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
 - **The interface is the test surface.**
 - **One adapter = hypothetical seam. Two adapters = real seam.**
 
+If a term or principle above is ambiguous in the case in front of you, or you need the definitions and the principles the two lists leave out, read `LANGUAGE.md`.
+
 This skill is _informed_ by the project's domain model. The domain language gives names to good seams; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate.
 
 ## Process
@@ -53,7 +60,7 @@ Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
 - **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
 - **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
 
-**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
+**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the architecture glossary above for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
 
 **ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
 
@@ -65,7 +72,7 @@ Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the des
 
 Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:
 
-- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/grill-with-docs` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md)). Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
+- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `grill-with-docs`, in the format `grill-with-docs`'s `CONTEXT-FORMAT.md` defines. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
 - **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
-- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See [ADR-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md).
-- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).
+- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See `grill-with-docs`'s `ADR-FORMAT.md`.
+- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Read `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md`.

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# prototype
+
+Build a throwaway prototype that answers one design question — either a runnable terminal app or several UI variations.
+
+## What it does
+
+Treats a prototype as **throwaway code that answers a question**, and lets the question decide the artifact. `SKILL.md` opens with a two-row dispatch table and the run resolves exactly one row before doing anything else:
+
+- *"Does this logic / state model feel right?"* → a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through the cases that are hard to reason about on paper.
+- *"What should this look like?"* → several radically different UI variations on one route, switchable from a floating bottom bar via a URL search param.
+
+The two branches produce fundamentally different artifacts, so picking wrong wastes the whole prototype. When the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user is unreachable, the skill defaults on the shape of the surrounding code (backend module → logic, page or component → UI) and states the assumption at the top of the prototype rather than silently choosing.
+
+Six rules apply to both branches: throwaway and visibly named as such, one command to run, no persistence by default, no polish, surface the full state after every action or variant switch, and delete or absorb the prototype when it is done. The *answer* is the only durable output — the skill captures it in a commit message, ADR, issue or `NOTES.md` before the code is deleted.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/prototype
+```
+
+State the design question. For production code, use `tdd`; for talking a design through without building anything, use `grill-me`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The branch dispatch table and the rules that apply to both branches |
+| `references/logic.md` | The logic branch, read only when that row is selected: when it is the right shape, and how to build the interactive terminal app |
+| `references/ui.md` | The UI branch, read only when that row is selected: when it is the right shape, and how to build and switch between the variations |
+
+Each reference is self-contained — a run reads one of the two, never both.

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: prototype
-description: Build a throwaway prototype to flush out a design before committing to it. Routes between two branches — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations toggleable from one route. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a data model or state machine, mock up a UI, explore design options, or says "prototype this", "let me play with it", "try a few designs".
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants a throwaway prototype to answer a design question about
+  a data model, state machine or business logic, or to mock up a UI in several
+  variations. Not production code -> `tdd`. Not talking a design through ->
+  `grill-me`.
 ---
 
 # Prototype
@@ -9,10 +13,12 @@ A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides
 
 ## Pick a branch
 
-Identify which question is being answered — from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:
+| Question being answered | Build | Reference |
+|---|---|---|
+| "Does this logic / state model feel right?" | A tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper | `references/logic.md` |
+| "What should this look like?" | Several radically different UI variations on one route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar | `references/ui.md` |
 
-- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper.
-- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.
+Resolve the row from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around, then read only that reference — each is self-contained.
 
 The two branches produce fundamentally different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.
 

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/references/logic.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ A tiny interactive terminal app that lets the user drive a state model by hand.
 - "I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it."
 - Anything where the user wants to **press buttons and watch state change**.
 
-If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md).
+If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Read `references/ui.md`.
 
 ## Process
 

plugins/bin/skills/prototype/references/ui.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Generate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.
 
-If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).
+If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Read `references/logic.md`.
 
 ## When this is the right shape
 

plugins/bin/skills/research/META.md

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-```yaml
-version: "1.1"
-updated: 2026-06-21
-
-when: >-
-  Invoked when the user wants to gather structured reference documentation for a
-  tool, library, or API from MCP documentation indexes or web sources. Typically
-  run before writing a new skill that wraps an external tool, or any time
-  reference files are needed for a topic. Triggered explicitly
-  ("/research <topic> <path>") or implicitly when the user asks to look up,
-  gather, or pull docs for a topic before implementing something.
-
-references:
-  - .agents/skills/context7-mcp/SKILL.md  # context7-mcp — MCP source channel integrated at step 2
-```

plugins/bin/skills/research/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# research
+
+Research a tool, library or API from canonical documentation into a directory of structured per-topic reference files.
+
+## What it does
+
+Runs a six-step pipeline: scope against the working directory (what version is actually in use, what is already documented), resolve the topic through Context7, websearch for canonical docs covering whatever Context7 missed, read those sources, deepen one level into the links worth following, then write one markdown file per topic area plus a `sources.md` provenance record.
+
+Four gotchas at the top of `SKILL.md` shape the whole run, and each exists because of a specific failure: the output path is never inferred (a guessed destination scatters a directory's worth of files through someone's source tree); nothing is written outside that path; no empty topic file is ever written (a stub `troubleshooting.md` reads downstream as researched and closed); and a Context7 "no results", redirect or header-only response does not count as coverage. If no topic area has content, the run writes nothing at all — `sources.md` included — and reports what it searched.
+
+The frontmatter pins `model: sonnet` and a closed `allowed-tools` list. Notably it grants no subagent tool, so every `WebFetch` is serial and each fetched page lands in the run's own context — which is why steps 4 and 5 insist on reducing each page to notes before fetching the next, and cap deepening at roughly ten extra pages.
+
+## Composition
+
+Both reference files are read on condition, never on every run — `SKILL.md` inlines the minimum each step needs (the seven default topic areas at step 1, the four `sources.md` field names and the topic-file frontmatter keys at step 6) and sends the run to the reference only for what it does not carry. Those four field names are matched literally by the downstream provenance validator, so prose written in their place parses as nothing and the check passes having verified nothing — which is why they are inlined rather than deferred.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/research
+```
+
+Name the topic and the output path — the skill will stop and ask if the path is missing. Supplying starting URLs is treated as a deliberate source choice and skips Context7 resolution and discovery. For documentation derived from existing code or specs, use `write-docs`; for a bug or incident, use `diagnose`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The four gotchas and the six research steps |
+| `references/topics.md` | Read at Step 1 only when what belongs in a default topic is unclear or a custom topic is needed: the per-topic coverage table and the custom-topic naming rule |
+| `references/file-format.md` | Read at Step 6 only when the inlined field names do not settle the case: slug derivation, the Context7 slug and URL convention, and what belongs in a topic body |

plugins/bin/skills/research/SKILL.md

@@ -1,97 +1,78 @@
 ---
 name: research
 description: >-
-  Use when the user wants to research a topic and generate structured reference
-  markdown files. Handles: finding canonical docs for a tool/library/API via
-  Context7 MCP or web sources, reading and deepening into linked pages,
-  organizing extracted content into topic files (overview, installation,
-  configuration, cli-reference, api-reference, examples, troubleshooting). Do
-  NOT use when the user wants to write documentation from existing code or specs
-  (use write-docs), install or manage the neuledge-context MCP server (use
-  neuledge-context), or research a bug/incident (use diagnose).
+  Use when the user wants a tool, library, or API researched from canonical
+  documentation into structured per-topic reference markdown files. Not
+  documentation written from existing code or specs -> `write-docs`. Not a bug
+  or incident -> `diagnose`.
 metadata:
   category: research
 allowed-tools:
-  - WebSearch
-  - WebFetch
+  - Grep
+  - Glob
   - Read
   - Write
+  - WebSearch
+  - WebFetch
   - mcp__context7__resolve-library-id
   - mcp__context7__query-docs
 model: sonnet
 ---
 
-<requirements>
+## Gotchas
 
-## Required inputs
+- Never infer the output path. A run writes a directory's worth of files, and a guessed destination scatters them through someone's source tree. If the user named no path, stop and ask.
+- Write nothing outside the given output path. A file placed beside the agreed directory is one the user never asked for and will not think to look for.
+- Never write an empty topic file. A stub `troubleshooting.md` reads downstream as researched and closed.
+- A Context7 response that is a "no results" message, a redirect notice, or header-only boilerplate is not coverage. A topic area counts as covered only when the response carries at least one substantive paragraph.
 
-- **Topic** — the subject to research (tool, library, API, concept); inferred from user description if clear, ask if ambiguous
-- **Output path** — directory where reference files will be written; must be provided explicitly — do not infer or default
-- **Starting URLs** — optional; if provided, skip discovery websearch and read these first
+## Step 1 — Scope against the working directory
 
-## Constraints
+Search for existing use of the topic — imports, config files, version pins, reference files already written — and narrow the research to what is missing: the version actually in use, the topics not yet documented.
 
-- Never write files outside the explicitly provided output path
-- Skip any default topic file if no relevant content is found for it — do not create empty files
-- Create additional topic files beyond the default list when content warrants it (e.g. `webhooks.md`, `rate-limits.md`)
-- Subagents handle parallel source reading and link deepening — the orchestrator writes all files; subagents return summaries only, never write directly
-- Context7 MCP calls (`resolve-library-id`, `query-docs`) are made only by the orchestrator at step 2 — subagents must not call them
-- `sources.md` is always written, even if only one source was read
-- Each topic file must have frontmatter with `topic` and `source_keys`; body is prose only — no inline URLs
-- Source keys in `sources.md` must be kebab-case slugs: derived from the source domain or page title for web sources; for Context7 sources use `context7-<library-slug>` (e.g. `context7-vercel-next-js`)
-- Default topic list and file format spec live in `references/` sub-files — read them at step 1
+The default topic areas are `overview`, `installation`, `configuration`, `cli-reference`,
+`api-reference`, `examples` and `troubleshooting` — one file each, and only where content exists.
+If what belongs in one of them is unclear, or the topic needs a file outside that set, read
+`references/topics.md` for the per-topic coverage table and the custom-topic naming rule.
 
-</requirements>
+## Step 2 — Resolve against Context7
 
-<steps>
+If the topic is a library, framework, or API and the user gave no starting URLs, call `resolve-library-id` with the topic name and the user's full question — match quality depends on the question, not the bare name — then `query-docs` once per default topic area. Record each response as a source with slug `context7-<library-slug>`, and mark which topic areas it covered — those skip the web reads at step 4.
 
-## Process
+If the library does not resolve, or the user gave starting URLs, go to step 3. Explicit URLs are a source choice; do not second-guess them with a resolution attempt.
 
-1. **Scan codebase.** Search the working directory for existing usage of the topic — imports, config files, version pins, existing reference files. Use findings to narrow research scope (e.g. target the version already in use, skip topics already documented). Read `references/topics.md` for the default topic list and `references/file-format.md` for the output file format spec.
+## Step 3 — Discover sources
 
-2. **Try Context7.** If the topic is a library, framework, or API and no starting URLs were provided, call `resolve-library-id` with the topic name and the user's question. If a match resolves, call `query-docs` once per default topic area (see `references/topics.md`). Treat each response as a source summary with slug `context7-<library-slug>` (e.g. `context7-vercel-next-js`). A topic area has sufficient content when the Context7 response contains at least one substantive paragraph — not a "no results" message, redirect notice, or header-only boilerplate. Mark covered topic areas — skip their subagent web reads in step 4. If the library does not resolve, or starting URLs were provided (explicit source choice by the user), skip this step entirely.
+If the user gave starting URLs, skip discovery: those URLs are the source list and go straight to step 4.
 
-3. **Discover sources.** For topics not covered by Context7 (or when no starting URLs were provided and Context7 did not resolve), websearch for canonical documentation (prefer `llms.txt`, developer docs, official API references over tutorials or blog posts). Collect 3–5 candidate URLs before reading any.
+Otherwise, for every topic area Context7 did not cover, websearch for canonical documentation — `llms.txt`, official developer docs, and API references ahead of tutorials or blog posts. Collect three to five candidate URLs before reading any of them.
 
-4. **Read sources in parallel.** Spawn one subagent per source URL. Each subagent fetches the page, extracts relevant content, identifies links worth deepening, and returns a structured summary (content by topic area + links to follow). Subagents do not write files.
+If nothing usable comes back, stop and report what was searched, then ask for starting URLs rather than settling for tutorials.
 
-5. **Deepen.** For each subagent that returned links worth following, spawn child subagents per branch. Continue until content becomes repetitive or out of scope. Cap at ~10 additional pages total across all branches.
+## Step 4 — Read the sources
 
-6. **Consolidate.** Merge all subagent summaries (Context7 and web) by topic area. Identify which default topics have sufficient content and which custom topics emerged.
+`WebFetch` each URL in turn. No subagent tool is granted here, so the reads are serial and every fetched page lands in this context: reduce each page to notes by topic area, plus the links worth deepening, before fetching the next one.
 
-7. **Write topic files.** For each topic with content, write `<output-path>/<topic>.md` using the format in `references/file-format.md`. Orchestrator writes all files — never delegate file writing to a subagent.
+## Step 5 — Deepen
 
-8. **Write `sources.md`.** Write `<output-path>/sources.md` mapping each source slug to its URL (use `context7:<library-id>` as the URL for Context7 sources), description, and list of topic files it contributed to. Include sources that yielded no content, marked `no content extracted`.
+`WebFetch` the links worth following, still one at a time and still reducing each page to notes. Stop a branch once its content turns repetitive or leaves the topic, and cap the whole step at roughly ten additional pages — serial reads make that cap a real budget, not a formality.
 
-## Output format
+## Step 6 — Write
 
-- `<output-path>/<topic>.md` per topic with content — formatted per `references/file-format.md`
-- `<output-path>/sources.md` — always produced; maps slug → URL, description, contributing files
+Merge every set of notes, Context7 and web alike, by topic area, then write, in the output path:
 
-</steps>
+- `<topic>.md` for each topic area that has content, default or custom. Frontmatter carries `topic:` (the filename without `.md`) and `source_keys:` (kebab-case slugs matching `sources.md`); the body is prose in `##` sections, with no inline URLs.
+- `sources.md`, always, one `##` section per source — including sources that yielded nothing — with exactly these four fields:
 
-<checks>
+  ```markdown
+  - **URL:** <full URL>
+  - **Description:** <one-line summary>
+  - **Contributing files:** <topic files this source contributed to>
+  - **Status:** `extracted` | `no content extracted`
+  ```
 
-## Failure handling
+Spell those four field names exactly as given. The downstream provenance validator matches them literally; prose in their place parses as nothing, and the check passes having verified nothing.
 
-- Output path not provided — stop and ask; do not infer or default
-- No sources found after websearch — report what was searched, ask user to provide starting URLs
-- Subagent returns no usable content — skip that source, log in `sources.md` as `no content extracted`
-- All topic files would be empty — stop, report what was searched, do not write any files
+Read `references/file-format.md` when the four fields above do not settle the case: what a slug should be, the `context7-<library-slug>` slug and `context7:<library-id>` URL convention for a Context7 source, or what belongs in a topic body versus a verbatim copy of the source.
 
-## Self-check
-
-- [ ] Codebase scanned before any websearch was performed
-- [ ] Output path was explicitly provided — not inferred
-- [ ] `references/topics.md` and `references/file-format.md` read at step 1
-- [ ] Context7 resolution attempted before websearch when topic is a library/framework/API
-- [ ] Context7 calls made only at orchestrator step 2 — no subagent called `resolve-library-id` or `query-docs`
-- [ ] Context7 sources recorded in `sources.md` with `context7:<library-id>` as URL
-- [ ] No topic file written without content
-- [ ] `sources.md` written with all sources read (including those with no content extracted)
-- [ ] All file writes performed by the orchestrator, not subagents
-- [ ] Each topic file has `topic` and `source_keys` frontmatter fields
-- [ ] All source keys in topic files have a matching entry in `sources.md`
-- [ ] No files written outside the provided output path
-
-</checks>
+If no topic area has content, write nothing at all, `sources.md` included, and report what was searched.

plugins/bin/skills/tdd/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# tdd
+
+Test-driven development as a strict red-green-refactor loop, one behaviour at a time.
+
+## What it does
+
+Two convictions drive this skill. The first is about what a test is for: tests verify behaviour through public interfaces, not implementation details. A good test reads like a specification ("user can checkout with valid cart") and survives refactors because it does not care about internal structure. The warning sign for a bad one is precise — the test breaks when you refactor but behaviour has not changed.
+
+The second is an explicit anti-pattern: **do not write all the tests first, then all the implementation.** Horizontal slicing treats RED as "write every test" and GREEN as "write every implementation", and it produces tests of *imagined* behaviour — tests of the shape of things, insensitive to real change, committed to before the implementation was understood. The correct shape is vertical: one test → one implementation → repeat, each cycle informed by what the last one taught you.
+
+The workflow is four stages: plan (confirm the interface and which behaviours matter, with the user — you cannot test everything), fire a tracer bullet (one test proving the path works end to end), loop incrementally one behaviour at a time, then refactor once everything is green. Refactoring while RED is forbidden.
+
+Codebase exploration uses the project's domain glossary, so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and ADRs in the area are respected.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/tdd
+```
+
+Describe the feature or bug. Expect the skill to ask what the public interface should look like and which behaviours matter most before any code is written. For diagnosing an existing bug rather than building test-first, use `diagnose`; for throwaway exploratory code, use `prototype`.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | Philosophy, the horizontal-slicing anti-pattern, the four-stage workflow, and the per-cycle checklist |
+| `tests.md` | Skill-root document, cited from Philosophy: worked good and bad test examples |
+| `mocking.md` | Skill-root document, cited from Philosophy: mock at system boundaries only, and what not to mock |
+| `deep-modules.md` | Skill-root document, cited from stage 1: what a deep module is (small interface, large implementation) and why it is the design to aim for |
+| `interface-design.md` | Skill-root document, cited from stage 1: designing interfaces for testability, starting with accepting dependencies rather than creating them |
+| `refactoring.md` | Skill-root document, cited from stage 4: the refactor-candidate checklist — duplication, long methods, shallow modules, feature envy, primitive obsession |

plugins/bin/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: tdd
-description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants a feature built or a bug fixed test-first, in a strict
+  red-green-refactor loop, one behaviour at a time. Not diagnosing an existing
+  bug -> `diagnose`. Not throwaway exploratory code -> `prototype`.
 ---
 
 # Test-Driven Development
@@ -13,7 +16,7 @@ description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user
 
 **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.
 
-See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+If you need worked examples of the difference — a behaviour-level test beside the implementation-coupled version of the same check — read `tests.md`. If a test needs a collaborator faked, read `mocking.md` before reaching for a mock.
 
 ## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
 

plugins/bin/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Writing Agent Briefs
 
-An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue 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.
+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
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent w
 
 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:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **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

plugins/bin/skills/triage/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# triage
+
+Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.
+
+## What it does
+
+Gives issue triage an explicit state model and a fixed set of moves. Every issue carries exactly one **category** role (`bug`, `enhancement`) and one **state** role (`needs-triage`, `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, `wontfix`); conflicting state roles are flagged to the maintainer before anything else happens. Unlabeled issues normally enter at `needs-triage`; `needs-info` returns there once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any point, and unusual transitions are questioned rather than executed silently.
+
+A run does one of three things depending on what the maintainer asks for:
+
+- **Show what needs attention** — three buckets, oldest first: unlabeled, `needs-triage`, and `needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes.
+- **Triage a specific issue** — gather context (including prior triage notes, so resolved questions are not re-asked, and `.out-of-scope/` records that resemble the issue), recommend a category and state with reasoning, attempt reproduction for bugs *before* any grilling, run a `grill-with-docs` session if the issue needs fleshing out, then apply the outcome.
+- **Quick state override** — "move #42 to ready-for-agent" is trusted and applied directly, skipping grilling, after confirming the exact changes.
+
+Two hard rules: every comment or issue the skill posts during triage must open with the AI-generated disclaimer, and the canonical role names above are *not* necessarily the label strings in the tracker — each is resolved against the tracker's live label set before it is applied, and a name with no counterpart there is reported to the maintainer as a gap rather than guessed at.
+
+## Composition
+
+`grill-with-docs` is invoked at step 4 when an issue needs fleshing out; whatever that session establishes is carried into the triage notes so the work is not lost. The reverse direction also exists: `diagnose` names this skill as the place to send a *reported* bug that needs filing rather than debugging.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/triage
+```
+
+Then describe what you want in natural language — "show me anything that needs my attention", "let's look at #42", "move #42 to ready-for-agent", "what's ready for agents to pick up?".
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The roles and state machine, the three invocation modes, the needs-info template, and how to resume a prior session |
+| `AGENT-BRIEF.md` | Skill-root document, cited when an issue moves to `ready-for-agent` (and reused for `ready-for-human`): how to write a brief that stays durable for weeks while the codebase moves under it — describe interfaces and behavioural contracts, not line numbers |
+| `OUT-OF-SCOPE.md` | Skill-root document, cited when an enhancement is closed `wontfix` and when checking for prior rejections: how the `.out-of-scope/` knowledge base is laid out and what it is for — institutional memory, and deduplication against re-litigated requests |

plugins/bin/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: triage
-description: Triage issues through a state machine driven by triage roles. Use when user wants to create an issue, triage issues, review incoming bugs or feature requests, prepare issues for an AFK agent, or manage issue workflow.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants an issue created, triaged, or moved through the
+  tracker's triage states, or an issue prepared for an AFK agent. Not debugging
+  the bug itself -> `diagnose`. Not fleshing out a design -> `grill-with-docs`.
 ---
 
 # Triage
@@ -35,7 +38,7 @@ Five **state** roles:
 
 Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
 
-These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. Resolve each canonical name against the tracker's live label set before applying it, using whichever tracker skill this install provides. If a name has no counterpart there, report the gap and ask the maintainer for the mapping — never substitute a guess.
 
 State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time — flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
 

plugins/bin/skills/write-docs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# write-docs
+
+Produce technical documentation derived from code and spec, one section at a time, with a confirmation gate on every section.
+
+## What it does
+
+Casts the agent as a technical writer with one non-negotiable constraint: **every claim must be traceable to a source file line, a spec section, or an explicit user statement.** Nothing is invented, and behaviour that genuinely cannot be documented from the available sources is marked out-of-scope rather than explained away.
+
+The process is eight steps — identify scope, read and extract, gap check, draft section by section, confirmation gate, delta summary, reader testing, finalise — and several of them are deliberately gated on the human:
+
+- Files are read only after the user approves them by name. The skill may propose candidates; it waits.
+- The **gap check** presents what the code does say and asks the user to fill only what it does not: caller intent, error-handling rationale, non-obvious side effects.
+- No section is finalised until the full revised text has been shown. The skill never gates on output the user has not seen, and never reprints the whole document — all edits are surgical.
+- **Reader testing** predicts 5–10 questions a target reader would ask, then spawns a sub-agent that receives only the finished doc and the questions — no source files. If the doc cannot answer them, neither can the sub-agent, and the run loops back to drafting.
+
+Summary and overview sections are written last, once the detail sections are stable.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/write-docs
+```
+
+Name the files or modules to document, the target audience (developer / user / contributor / internal), and the documentation type (reference, guide, README section, inline comment, changelog entry). For a PRD, ADR or decision doc, use `grill-me` or `grill-with-docs` instead — those have dedicated handling.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — role, use/do-not-use boundaries, required inputs, constraints, the eight-step process, output format, failure handling, and a nine-item self-check |

plugins/bin/skills/write-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
 ---
 name: write-docs
-description: Write documentation for X, document this module, create docs for this feature. Use when the user wants to produce or update technical documentation derived from code, spec, or existing artifacts. Do NOT use when the user wants a PRD, ADR, decision doc, or skill file — those have dedicated skills.
+description: >
+  Use when the user wants technical documentation produced or updated from code
+  or spec, every claim traced to a source — "write docs for X", "document this
+  module", "create docs for this feature", "write a README for this". Not an ADR
+  or other decision record -> `grill-with-docs`. Not an external tool researched
+  from its docs -> `research`.
 version: "1.0"
 updated: 2026-05-17
 when: invoked by explicit trigger ("write docs for X", "document this module", "create docs for this feature") or implicit request to produce technical documentation from code or spec
@@ -35,7 +40,8 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - User says "write docs for X", "document this", "create docs for this feature", "write a README for this"
 
 **Do not use when:**
-- User wants a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `to-prd` or `grill-me`
+- User wants an ADR, decision doc, or architecture proposal → `grill-with-docs`, which writes ADRs
+- User wants a PRD → no skill in this set produces one; say so rather than redirecting
 - User wants to document a skill file (skill files are self-describing)
 - User wants marketing or blog copy
 - Documentation requires tacit organisational knowledge that cannot be read from code or spec
@@ -88,7 +94,7 @@ You are a technical writer that produces documentation by reading code and spec
 - Stage skipped without a logged reason → flag and require the one-sentence log before continuing
 - Code behaviour is undocumentable (internal implementation detail, no public spec) → note as out-of-scope in the doc; do not invent an explanation
 - Reader Testing sub-agent fails on multiple questions → surface the failures, return to step 4; do not mark complete
-- Requested output is a PRD, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `to-prd`, `grill-me`, or `grill-with-docs`
+- Requested output is an ADR, decision doc, or architecture proposal → redirect to `grill-with-docs`; for a PRD, say no skill here produces one instead of redirecting
 
 ## Self-check
 

plugins/bin/skills/zoom-out/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# zoom-out
+
+Ask the agent to go up a layer of abstraction and map the modules and callers around unfamiliar code.
+
+## What it does
+
+A single-purpose prompt for the moment you land in a part of the codebase you do not know. Instead of answering at the level of the file in front of it, the agent climbs one layer and produces a map of the relevant modules and their callers — and names them using the project's own domain glossary vocabulary, so the map lines up with the language the rest of the repo already uses.
+
+## Hand-invoked only
+
+`SKILL.md` sets `disable-model-invocation: true`, so the router never selects this skill on its own and no other skill can hand off to it. It runs when the human asks for it. That also means its description is written as one plain human-facing sentence — it carries no trigger phrasing or boundary clause, because nothing routes on it.
+
+## Usage
+
+```text
+/zoom-out
+```
+
+Best used with the unfamiliar code already in context — the skill widens the view around what you are looking at rather than picking a starting point for you.
+
+## Files
+
+| File | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| `SKILL.md` | The whole skill — a single instruction, no supporting files |