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
102 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
102 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# Out-of-Scope Knowledge Base
|
|
|
|
The `.out-of-scope/` directory in a repo stores persistent records of rejected feature requests. It serves two purposes:
|
|
|
|
1. **Institutional memory** — why a feature was rejected, so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed
|
|
2. **Deduplication** — when a new issue comes in that matches a prior rejection, the skill can surface the previous decision instead of re-litigating it
|
|
|
|
## Directory structure
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
.out-of-scope/
|
|
├── dark-mode.md
|
|
├── plugin-system.md
|
|
└── graphql-api.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thing are grouped under one file.
|
|
|
|
## File format
|
|
|
|
The file should be written in a relaxed, readable style — more like a short design document than a database entry. Use paragraphs, code samples, and examples to make the reasoning clear and useful to someone encountering it for the first time.
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Dark Mode
|
|
|
|
This project does not support dark mode or user-facing theming.
|
|
|
|
## Why this is out of scope
|
|
|
|
The rendering pipeline assumes a single color palette defined in
|
|
`ThemeConfig`. Supporting multiple themes would require:
|
|
|
|
- A theme context provider wrapping the entire component tree
|
|
- Per-component theme-aware style resolution
|
|
- A persistence layer for user theme preferences
|
|
|
|
This is a significant architectural change that doesn't align with the
|
|
project's focus on content authoring. Theming is a concern for downstream
|
|
consumers who embed or redistribute the output.
|
|
|
|
```ts
|
|
// The current ThemeConfig interface is not designed for runtime switching:
|
|
interface ThemeConfig {
|
|
colors: ColorPalette; // single palette, resolved at build time
|
|
fonts: FontStack;
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Prior requests
|
|
|
|
- #42 — "Add dark mode support"
|
|
- #87 — "Night theme for accessibility"
|
|
- #134 — "Dark theme option"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Naming the file
|
|
|
|
Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugin-system.md`, `graphql-api.md`. The name should be recognizable enough that someone browsing the directory understands what was rejected without opening the file.
|
|
|
|
### Writing the reason
|
|
|
|
The reason should be substantive — not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
|
|
|
|
- Project scope or philosophy ("This project focuses on X; theming is a downstream concern")
|
|
- Technical constraints ("Supporting this would require Y, which conflicts with our Z architecture")
|
|
- Strategic decisions ("We chose to use A instead of B because...")
|
|
|
|
The reason should be durable. Avoid referencing temporary circumstances ("we're too busy right now") — those aren't real rejections, they're deferrals.
|
|
|
|
## When to check `.out-of-scope/`
|
|
|
|
During triage (Step 1: Gather context), read all files in `.out-of-scope/`. When evaluating a new issue:
|
|
|
|
- Check if the request matches an existing out-of-scope concept
|
|
- Matching is by concept similarity, not keyword — "night theme" matches `dark-mode.md`
|
|
- If there's a match, surface it to the maintainer: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/dark-mode.md` — we rejected this before because [reason]. Do you still feel the same way?"
|
|
|
|
The maintainer may:
|
|
|
|
- **Confirm** — the new issue gets added to the existing file's "Prior requests" list, then closed
|
|
- **Reconsider** — the out-of-scope file gets deleted or updated, and the issue proceeds through normal triage
|
|
- **Disagree** — the issues are related but distinct, proceed with normal triage
|
|
|
|
## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
|
|
|
|
Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is rejected as `wontfix`. The flow:
|
|
|
|
1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
|
|
2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
|
|
3. If yes: append the new issue to the "Prior requests" list
|
|
4. If no: create a new file with the concept name, decision, reason, and first prior request
|
|
5. Post a comment on the issue explaining the decision and mentioning the `.out-of-scope/` file
|
|
6. Close the issue with the `wontfix` label
|
|
|
|
## Updating or removing out-of-scope files
|
|
|
|
If the maintainer changes their mind about a previously rejected concept:
|
|
|
|
- Delete the `.out-of-scope/` file
|
|
- The skill does not need to reopen old issues — they're historical records
|
|
- The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage
|