Defame1297
5e232503c4
Why: ADR-0015 established that Microsoft APM (apm.yml + .apm/) should replace this repo's hand-authored plugin.json/marketplace.json model, with those files becoming compiled output of `apm pack` instead of files edited by hand via the (now-retired) plugin-author/marketplace-author skills. Issue #90 was the deferred execution of that decision, gated on #88 (apm tooling) and #89 (apm-native agent-author/skill-author routing). Implementation notes: - All six plugins (bin, core, git, gitea, kyberforge, lint) now carry apm.yml + .apm/{skills,agents,hooks} as their authoring source. Skills moved with a plain git mv (content-identical across targets). Agents were re-authored, not moved: per ADR-0016, .apm/agents/*.agent.md compiles verbatim to both Claude and Copilot, so plugin-scope agents now carry only name/description/model/source_keys -- no tools: field, no Claude-only knobs (isolation, maxTurns, effort, memory, permissionMode). - Root apm.yml registers all 7 marketplace packages (6 local plus mattpocock-skills as a remote entry) under versioning: per_package, matching this repo's existing independent-plugin-versioning practice. - .claude-plugin/marketplace.json and every plugin's plugin.json are now apm-pack-compiled output, verified against the prior hand-maintained content: same names/descriptions/versions/licenses/authors, only cosmetic serialization differences (JSON key order, owner email vs. url, Unicode escaping). - plugin-author and marketplace-author are retired now that apm-based authoring fully replaces their job; kyberforge bumped 1.3.1 -> 1.4.0 for that removal, and the root marketplace catalog bumped 0.3.1 -> 0.3.2 to match, per the version-bump convention now documented in apm-workflow's reference docs instead of a dedicated script (apm has no native version-bump automation). - Fixed hardcoded pre-.apm/ path assumptions across .pre-commit-config.yaml, .pre-commit-hooks.yaml, scripts/check-scope-walkup-sync.sh, scripts/sync-vale-styles.sh, scripts/check-vale-style-sync.sh, six plugins' root plugin.json (stale skills/hooks/agents pointer fields that check-manifests.sh validates), and several tests/*.bats and tests/*.sh fixtures -- including a bats REPO_ROOT relative-path depth bug (10 files, one extra .apm/ directory level to walk up) and a vale probe-path isolation regression introduced mid-fix. - Corrected empirically-wrong assumptions surfaced this session in apm-workflow/apm-install's own reference docs: `apm marketplace package add` does not accept local paths (only owner/repo remote shorthand -- local packages are registered by editing apm.yml's marketplace.packages[] directly); `apm compile` is a consumer-side AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md generator, not the plugin.json producer, and hard-fails on skill/agent-only packages without --clean; `apm plugin init <name>` nests a stray subdirectory when run with a positional name arg from inside a same-named directory; no native Copilot marketplace output profile exists; .mcp.json is merged into the compiled plugin.json content-aware and target-scoped, with no dependencies.mcp entry needed for simple passthrough; pipx is the correct pip fallback on externally-managed Python environments. - Renamed agent-author's copilot.agent.md template asset to copilot.agent.md.template so apm compile's recursive *.agent.md glob stops misparsing the placeholder template as a real agent primitive. Impact: plugin.json and marketplace.json are compiled artifacts from here on -- editing them by hand is no longer the workflow; edit apm.yml/.apm/ and run apm pack. CONTEXT.md's Plugin/Plugin marketplace glossary entries reflect this. ADR-0001 is marked superseded, ADR-0006 moot, and ADR-0010 updated for the new .apm/agents/ path (project/user scope unaffected, per ADR-0016). Full local verification: claude plugin validate --strict on all 6 plugins, apm audit --ci, apm marketplace check, check-manifests.sh, and the full test suite (165/165 bats, 13/13 shell scripts) all pass clean. Fixes: #90 Refs: #88, #89 ADR: 0015 ADR: 0016 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ub96PyaSRD9BHPktotj1pC
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
|