Files

Defame1297 38f1ba4e03 fix(kyberforge): bridge apm content to Claude Code's flat plugin discovery

Claude Code's (and Copilot's) native plugin installer has zero awareness of
.apm/ nesting -- it convention-scans only flat skills/, agents/, commands/,
hooks.json at each plugin's root. Confirmed via strings on the installed
claude binary and live installs of git@holocron/gitea@holocron/kyberforge@
holocron, all reporting Skills(0) Agents(0) Hooks(0) post ADR-0015's apm
conversion. Root cause (apm_cli/core/plugin_manifest.py): apm's plugin.json
compiler deliberately strips skills/agents/commands keys, assuming the host
already auto-discovers those convention directories -- it has no model of
.apm/ being host-visible at all. Separately, apm's own bundle exporter
(apm_cli/bundle/plugin_exporter.py, behind `apm pack --format plugin`)
implements the correct .apm/ -> flat mapping, but only ever targeted
build/<name>-<version>/, a path nothing in marketplace.json's source: points
at.

scripts/sync-plugin-content.sh wraps that bundle exporter and copies its
agents/, skills/, commands/, instructions/, extensions/, and merged
hooks.json back into each plugin's own root as a second tracked
compiled-output category -- same governance status as
.claude-plugin/plugin.json: generated from .apm/, never hand-edited. tests/
subdirectories are excluded from the mirror (dev fixtures, not host-visible
runtime content; several hardcode a relative repo-root walk-up sized for the
.apm/-nested depth, which breaks when duplicated one level shallower).
Applied for real across all 6 plugins and verified two ways: `claude plugin
validate --strict` passes on every real plugin directory, and a live
`claude --plugin-dir <path> -p "list skills/agents"` behavioral test
confirms content is now actually discovered.

Also, from the same issue #90 review round:
- scripts/check-manifests.sh pointed at each plugin's root-level plugin.json
  (checking skills/hooks/mcpServers/agents pointer fields) -- that file was a
  stale near-duplicate of .claude-plugin/plugin.json nothing else read or
  wrote, now deleted across all 6 plugins. check-manifests.sh is rewritten to
  validate .claude-plugin/plugin.json instead, and drops the pointer-field
  checks entirely (nothing to check -- those fields are correctly absent by
  design). Content-presence drift is now check-plugin-content-sync's job, a
  new pre-push hook wired in .pre-commit-config.yaml.

docs/adr/0017 records the root cause and decision in full, including two
rejected alternatives (patching plugin.json's path fields directly -- apm's
compiler strips them on every run; pointing marketplace.json at apm pack's
build/ output -- a version-suffixed non-source directory nothing can install
from without an extra build step). ADR-0015 and CONTEXT.md are updated to
point at it.

Refs: #90

2026-08-13 16:59:03 +00:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

ADR Format

ADRs live in docs/adr/ and use sequential numbering: 0001-slug.md, 0002-slug.md, etc.

Create the docs/adr/ directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.

Template

# {Short title of the decision}

{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}

That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording that a decision was made and why — not in filling out sections.

Optional sections

Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.

Status frontmatter (proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN) — useful when decisions are revisited
Considered Options — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
Consequences — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out

Numbering

Scan docs/adr/ for the highest existing number and increment by one.

When to offer an ADR

All three of these must be true:

Hard to reverse — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
Surprising without context — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
The result of a real trade-off — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons

If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."

What qualifies

Architectural shape. "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
Integration patterns between contexts. "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
Technology choices that carry lock-in. Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library — just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
Boundary and scope decisions. "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
Deliberate deviations from the obvious path. "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
Constraints not visible in the code. "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious. If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it — otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History