feat(kyberforge): execute plugin-to-apm marketplace conversion
Why: ADR-0015 established that Microsoft APM (apm.yml + .apm/) should replace this repo's hand-authored plugin.json/marketplace.json model, with those files becoming compiled output of `apm pack` instead of files edited by hand via the (now-retired) plugin-author/marketplace-author skills. Issue #90 was the deferred execution of that decision, gated on #88 (apm tooling) and #89 (apm-native agent-author/skill-author routing). Implementation notes: - All six plugins (bin, core, git, gitea, kyberforge, lint) now carry apm.yml + .apm/{skills,agents,hooks} as their authoring source. Skills moved with a plain git mv (content-identical across targets). Agents were re-authored, not moved: per ADR-0016, .apm/agents/*.agent.md compiles verbatim to both Claude and Copilot, so plugin-scope agents now carry only name/description/model/source_keys -- no tools: field, no Claude-only knobs (isolation, maxTurns, effort, memory, permissionMode). - Root apm.yml registers all 7 marketplace packages (6 local plus mattpocock-skills as a remote entry) under versioning: per_package, matching this repo's existing independent-plugin-versioning practice. - .claude-plugin/marketplace.json and every plugin's plugin.json are now apm-pack-compiled output, verified against the prior hand-maintained content: same names/descriptions/versions/licenses/authors, only cosmetic serialization differences (JSON key order, owner email vs. url, Unicode escaping). - plugin-author and marketplace-author are retired now that apm-based authoring fully replaces their job; kyberforge bumped 1.3.1 -> 1.4.0 for that removal, and the root marketplace catalog bumped 0.3.1 -> 0.3.2 to match, per the version-bump convention now documented in apm-workflow's reference docs instead of a dedicated script (apm has no native version-bump automation). - Fixed hardcoded pre-.apm/ path assumptions across .pre-commit-config.yaml, .pre-commit-hooks.yaml, scripts/check-scope-walkup-sync.sh, scripts/sync-vale-styles.sh, scripts/check-vale-style-sync.sh, six plugins' root plugin.json (stale skills/hooks/agents pointer fields that check-manifests.sh validates), and several tests/*.bats and tests/*.sh fixtures -- including a bats REPO_ROOT relative-path depth bug (10 files, one extra .apm/ directory level to walk up) and a vale probe-path isolation regression introduced mid-fix. - Corrected empirically-wrong assumptions surfaced this session in apm-workflow/apm-install's own reference docs: `apm marketplace package add` does not accept local paths (only owner/repo remote shorthand -- local packages are registered by editing apm.yml's marketplace.packages[] directly); `apm compile` is a consumer-side AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md generator, not the plugin.json producer, and hard-fails on skill/agent-only packages without --clean; `apm plugin init <name>` nests a stray subdirectory when run with a positional name arg from inside a same-named directory; no native Copilot marketplace output profile exists; .mcp.json is merged into the compiled plugin.json content-aware and target-scoped, with no dependencies.mcp entry needed for simple passthrough; pipx is the correct pip fallback on externally-managed Python environments. - Renamed agent-author's copilot.agent.md template asset to copilot.agent.md.template so apm compile's recursive *.agent.md glob stops misparsing the placeholder template as a real agent primitive. Impact: plugin.json and marketplace.json are compiled artifacts from here on -- editing them by hand is no longer the workflow; edit apm.yml/.apm/ and run apm pack. CONTEXT.md's Plugin/Plugin marketplace glossary entries reflect this. ADR-0001 is marked superseded, ADR-0006 moot, and ADR-0010 updated for the new .apm/agents/ path (project/user scope unaffected, per ADR-0016). Full local verification: claude plugin validate --strict on all 6 plugins, apm audit --ci, apm marketplace check, check-manifests.sh, and the full test suite (165/165 bats, 13/13 shell scripts) all pass clean. Fixes: #90 Refs: #88, #89 ADR: 0015 ADR: 0016 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ub96PyaSRD9BHPktotj1pC
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Interface Design
|
||||
|
||||
When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
|
||||
|
||||
Uses the vocabulary in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Frame the problem space
|
||||
|
||||
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
|
||||
|
||||
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
|
||||
- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
||||
- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
|
||||
|
||||
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Spawn sub-agents
|
||||
|
||||
Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
|
||||
|
||||
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
|
||||
|
||||
- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
|
||||
- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
|
||||
- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
|
||||
- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
|
||||
|
||||
Include both [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
|
||||
|
||||
Each sub-agent outputs:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
|
||||
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
|
||||
3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
|
||||
4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
||||
5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Present and compare
|
||||
|
||||
Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
|
||||
|
||||
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user