598a7c326a
Retrofits all 39 skills to ADR-0020's description/body context contract, then fixes what six rounds of independent review found in that retrofit — including four ways the hot gate itself failed open. Closes #99, #107, #108, #110, #111, #114, #115, #120. ## The retrofit (waves 1-5) | | Start | Now | |---|---|---| | Description FAILs (>400 chars) | 26 | **0** | | Body FAILs (>900 words, body-only) | 9 | **0** | | Dangling routing targets | 2 | **0** | | `Kyberforge.CompositionNote` | 10 | **0** | | Preload tax | 21,005 chars | **~10,500** | Under the 12,000-char success criterion. Per-wave detail is on #99. ## The review fixes **The gate failed open four ways, three of them found after the retrofit shipped.** An unrecognised follower token made a dangling target vanish. A skill directory with no `SKILL.md` resolved as a valid target, so a commit could be green locally and red in a fresh clone — three existing fixtures were relying on that, one of which made the install-leak A/B pass vacuously. Then the free-standing `/name` sweep turned out to be gated on the sentence carrying a boundary marker, so route notation in any other sentence was invisible — not an ERROR, not a SUGGESTION, not an INFO — which left the documented "`/name` always blocks" promise false from a second direction. All four fixed and pinned. **Two checks were silently not running.** `validate-provenance.sh` checks 7-8 were dead across nine skills. Waking them exposed a deeper problem: they assume `Research doc:` names a source index, but 30 of 121 entries point at topic content documents, so every new check-7 INFO was a false positive and check 8 was saved from a false-FAIL flood only by an *unannounced* skip. Checks 7/8 are now scoped to source indexes and every skip announces itself (#121). **The retrofit's own anti-goal, four times.** ADR-0020 warns that a blunt gate gets satisfied by deleting content rather than relocating it. `diagnose` and `skill-audit` relocated prose and then read it unconditionally; `prototype` and `vale-config` deleted rules outright that survived nowhere. All four addressed. ## Verification - `bash tests/run-tests.sh --strict` — 24 suites, 0 skipped, 0 failed - `bash tests/run-bats.sh` — 325 tests, 0 failures - `pre-commit run --all-files` — 17/17 - `pre-commit run --hook-stage pre-push --all-files` — 16/16, with `apm marketplace check` and `apm pack --check-clean` run against the remote, not skipped - `scripts/skill-size-check.sh` over all 39 skills — rc 0, 0 ERROR/FAIL, SUGGESTION-only - Preload tax measured at **10,498 chars**, max description 390 — both inside budget - Every new test proven non-vacuous by a deliberate mutation of the behaviour it covers **Per-commit sync, stated accurately:** the ten commits from the latest review round each pass `check-plugin-content-sync` in isolation, verified by checking each out in a detached worktree with a clean between. The earlier gitea window (`dfacf05..bedbd1d`, nine commits) does **not** — its mirror was regenerated in one batch at `bbc7300`. An earlier revision of this description claimed the property held for every commit; it does not, and a bisect through that window lands on a red commit. **Squash-merge** to collapse it, or accept that this range is not bisectable. ## Version bump Six plugins and the catalog take a **patch**, not a minor. The branch is **89 commits — 40 `fix` / 30 `refactor` / 12 `docs` / 5 `chore` / 2 `test` — zero `feat`, zero `!`, zero `BREAKING CHANGE`** — and adds no skill, agent, command or hook. (Two earlier revisions of this section cited a stale histogram, most recently 78 commits; the figures above are measured at HEAD.) Both rules this repo ships (`forge/references/version-bump.md`, landing in this PR, and `git-commits/references/conventional-commits-spec.md`) make that a patch, and the catalog set is unchanged at 7 entries. Not settled by that: four published files were removed from the installed tree, three moved, and `caveman` gained `disable-model-invocation`, retiring its old triggers. Under a strict reading those are major-class and currently ship under `refactor:` with no marker. Whether the deployed skill surface is a public contract is written down nowhere — worth deciding, but it outlives this PR. ## Deliberately not in scope #112 (cherry-pick ownership, now resolved in favour of `git-commits`), #113 (`rtk git` normalisation), #116 (research fan-out), #101 (audit-skill merge), #122 (non-spec skill-root files), #123 (no PRD producer) stay open. #117 is the one worth reading: the contract's remedy is to move prose into `references/`, which is exactly where neither the size gate nor Vale looks — and the blind spot is wider than #117 currently records, since there is no root `.vale.ini` at all, so every ADR, `CONTEXT.md` and `README.md` is unlinted too. That blind spot let this branch carry two `level: error` `Kyberforge.SentenceOpenerThereIs` violations into `references/` files it created — `provider-adapter-author/references/provider-matrix.md:31` and `agent-audit/references/finding-criteria.md:95`. Both are reworded in `afadaae`, confirmed by routing each file through the audit's own `vale-wrap.sh` (1 error each before, 0 after). Five further occurrences sit in `references/` files already on `main`; those are the pre-existing corpus and stay with #117, which is the real fix. Also unfixed and not this PR's: `apm install` appends a duplicate `SessionStart` entry to `.claude/settings.json`, so a fresh clone cannot get pre-push green without an edit AGENTS.md warns against. Reproduces identically on `main`. Co-authored-by: Defame1297 <gitea@rkdr.net> Reviewed-on: https://git.dev.rkdr.net/Defame1297/holocron/pulls/129 Co-authored-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net> Co-committed-by: Claude Code AI - Gitea MCP <claude@noreply.git.dev.rkdr.net>
79 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: improve-codebase-architecture
|
|
description: >
|
|
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`.
|