Files

Defame1297 5e232503c4 feat(kyberforge): execute plugin-to-apm marketplace conversion

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

2026-08-12 18:21:24 +00:00

5.0 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
improve-codebase-architecture	Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.

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." Full definitions in LANGUAGE.md.

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 (see LANGUAGE.md for the full list):

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.

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 LANGUAGE.md vocabulary 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 (see CONTEXT-FORMAT.md). 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 ADR-FORMAT.md.
Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module? See INTERFACE-DESIGN.md.

5.0 KiB Raw Blame History