Defame1297
a3e721e937
Why: ADR-0022 made `metadata.version` mandatory in SKILL.md frontmatter, but three documents still instructed the opposite — that `version:`, `source:`, `references:` and `when:` belong in a separate META.md. That recommendation was never implemented: META.md exists exactly once in this repo, inside a vendored third-party research example, and all 39 skills now contradict it. A stale instruction that outranks nothing is worse than no instruction, because an author following it undoes the ADR. Implementation notes: - Two LESSONS.md entries deleted outright — their entire payload was the rejected fix. Two kept and rewritten: the copy-fill entry loses only its META-TEMPLATE clause, and the `model:` entry keeps the provider-extension fact and the invocation-time boundary rule, which stand on their own. - One factual error corrected in passing: the `extracted` slug entry claimed provenance is recorded in META.md. It lives in `references/sources.md` keyed by `source_keys:`, verified against validate-provenance.sh. - Both docs/notes files gain `metadata.version` in their required-field lists. Deleting the stale paragraph while leaving those lists silent would have re-created the gap. - `bin/write-docs` carried `metadata.version: "1.0"` — the only non-semver value in the corpus, and the result of relocating its old top-level `version:` without normalising it. Now `1.0.0`. ADR-0022 records the relocation it previously omitted, which issue #127 had asked it to decide. Impact: patch bumps for the four plugins whose `.apm/` content changed — bin, git, gitea, kyberforge. core and lint are untouched and stay put. Root apm.yml's `executables.allow` key and marketplace package versions move in lockstep; the marketplace release version is unchanged. Refs: #127 ADR: 0022 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EeH8SCbcrCAQrtymkNuhKP
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
/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 |