Files

Defame1297 40ff89eabf fix(bin): restore prototype's deleted anti-patterns and two routing triggers

ADR-0020's stated anti-goal is satisfying the size gate by deleting content rather
than relocating it. prototype's logic.md lost three anti-patterns, including
"Don't generalise" — the one with a distinct failure mode, a throwaway growing
abstractions for hypothetical futures, and the one the logic branch is most exposed
to. It survived nowhere in the repo.

The deletion bought nothing measurable: references/ sits outside the body FAIL,
outside the 600-word suggestion and outside the Vale gate, and prototype's body is
483 words. 4011d14 restored the byte-identical defect in the sibling ui.md with
exactly that reasoning in its message and left this file alone. Restored verbatim
from main.

improve-codebase-architecture had dropped "refactoring" from its description
entirely, so "find refactoring opportunities in this repo" had no lexical match,
while spending characters on a boundary against tdd — which cannot plausibly steal
an architecture request. retrofit.md names that exact failure: an invented boundary
costs characters and buys no routing accuracy.

write-docs had dropped all four literal trigger phrasings, leaving them only in the
body and a `when:` field, neither visible to the router at routing time. Its
boundary also sent PRDs to grill-with-docs, which has no PRD flow, and the body
repeated that at two more places. Per #123 nothing in the corpus produces a PRD, so
no target was invented — the boundary is now honest about the ADR case only.

Two READMEs added by this branch contradicted the SKILL.md they document: triage's
label resolution, and grill-with-docs' fifth during-session behaviour. Unconditional
reference pointers in tdd and improve-codebase-architecture are now conditional; the
files stay at the skill root, which is #122's scope.

Refs: #114, #122, #123
ADR: 0020

2026-09-01 12:39:22 +00:00

5.1 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
improve-codebase-architecture	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`.

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.

5.1 KiB Raw Blame History