Files

Defame1297 5e232503c4 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

2026-08-12 18:21:24 +00:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

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 — 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)
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, 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 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:

Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
Usage example showing how callers use it
What the implementation hides behind the seam
Dependency strategy and adapters (see DEEPENING.md)
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.

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape