Defame1297
60be7b3232
Only 12 of 39 skills carried metadata.version, and adoption tracked which plugin a skill lived in rather than any stated rule: core, gitea and lint were consistent adopters, bin and kyberforge were consistent non-adopters, git was split with one outlier. There was no documented convention, and skill-author's own bump logic was already written as if presence were conditional. metadata.version is now required on every skill. The 19 skills here that never carried one (bin, kyberforge, gitea-files) are seeded at 1.0.0, not 0.1.0 -- that value stays reserved for a skill's actual creation point under skill-author's existing convention. The skill-frontmatter pre-commit hook now fails a SKILL.md missing the field, the same class of failure as a missing name/description. Full rationale in the new ADR. The git-plugin skills that also need this field follow in the next commit, bundled with issue #113's rtk normalization since both touch the same files. Refs: #127 ADR: 0022 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EeH8SCbcrCAQrtymkNuhKP
94 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
94 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: grill-with-docs
|
|
description: >
|
|
Use when a plan should be stress-tested against the project's domain model —
|
|
the interview challenges terms against `CONTEXT.md` and writes decisions into
|
|
it and into ADRs as they land. Not a plain interview -> `grill-me`.
|
|
metadata:
|
|
version: "1.0.0"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
<what-to-do>
|
|
|
|
Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
|
|
|
|
Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.
|
|
|
|
If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
|
|
|
|
</what-to-do>
|
|
|
|
<supporting-info>
|
|
|
|
## Domain awareness
|
|
|
|
During codebase exploration, also look for existing documentation:
|
|
|
|
### File structure
|
|
|
|
Most repos have a single context:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
/
|
|
├── CONTEXT.md
|
|
├── docs/
|
|
│ └── adr/
|
|
│ ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
|
|
│ └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
|
|
└── src/
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
/
|
|
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
|
|
├── docs/
|
|
│ └── adr/ ← system-wide decisions
|
|
├── src/
|
|
│ ├── ordering/
|
|
│ │ ├── CONTEXT.md
|
|
│ │ └── docs/adr/ ← context-specific decisions
|
|
│ └── billing/
|
|
│ ├── CONTEXT.md
|
|
│ └── docs/adr/
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
|
|
|
|
## During the session
|
|
|
|
### Challenge against the glossary
|
|
|
|
When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
|
|
|
|
### Sharpen fuzzy language
|
|
|
|
When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
|
|
|
|
### Discuss concrete scenarios
|
|
|
|
When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.
|
|
|
|
### Cross-reference with code
|
|
|
|
When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
|
|
|
|
### Update CONTEXT.md inline
|
|
|
|
When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
|
|
|
|
Don't couple `CONTEXT.md` to implementation details. Only include terms that are meaningful to domain experts.
|
|
|
|
### Offer ADRs sparingly
|
|
|
|
Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
|
|
|
|
1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
|
|
2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
|
|
3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
|
|
|
|
If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).
|
|
|
|
</supporting-info>
|