Defame1297
60be7b3232
Only 12 of 39 skills carried metadata.version, and adoption tracked which plugin a skill lived in rather than any stated rule: core, gitea and lint were consistent adopters, bin and kyberforge were consistent non-adopters, git was split with one outlier. There was no documented convention, and skill-author's own bump logic was already written as if presence were conditional. metadata.version is now required on every skill. The 19 skills here that never carried one (bin, kyberforge, gitea-files) are seeded at 1.0.0, not 0.1.0 -- that value stays reserved for a skill's actual creation point under skill-author's existing convention. The skill-frontmatter pre-commit hook now fails a SKILL.md missing the field, the same class of failure as a missing name/description. Full rationale in the new ADR. The git-plugin skills that also need this field follow in the next commit, bundled with issue #113's rtk normalization since both touch the same files. Refs: #127 ADR: 0022 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EeH8SCbcrCAQrtymkNuhKP
81 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
81 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: improve-codebase-architecture
|
|
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`.
|
|
metadata:
|
|
version: "1.0.0"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Improve Codebase Architecture
|
|
|
|
Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
|
|
|
|
## Glossary
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
- **Implementation** — the code inside.
|
|
- **Depth** — leverage at the interface: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface. **Deep** = high leverage. **Shallow** = interface nearly as complex as the implementation.
|
|
- **Seam** — where an interface lives; a place behaviour can be altered without editing in place. (Use this, not "boundary.")
|
|
- **Adapter** — a concrete thing satisfying an interface at a seam.
|
|
- **Leverage** — what callers get from depth.
|
|
- **Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
### 1. Explore
|
|
|
|
Read the project's domain glossary and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
|
|
|
|
Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
|
|
|
|
- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
|
|
- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
|
|
- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)?
|
|
- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
|
|
- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
|
|
|
|
Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Present candidates
|
|
|
|
Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
|
|
|
|
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
|
|
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
|
|
- **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 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.
|
|
|
|
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
|
|
|
|
### 3. Grilling loop
|
|
|
|
Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the design tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
|
|
|
|
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`, 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 `grill-with-docs`'s `ADR-FORMAT.md`.
|
|
- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Read `INTERFACE-DESIGN.md`.
|