Defame1297
38f1ba4e03
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
45 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
45 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|