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
2.7 KiB
2.7 KiB
ADR Format
ADRs live in docs/adr/ and use sequential numbering: 0001-slug.md, 0002-slug.md, etc.
Create the docs/adr/ directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.
Template
# {Short title of the decision}
{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording that a decision was made and why — not in filling out sections.
Optional sections
Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.
- Status frontmatter (
proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN) — useful when decisions are revisited - Considered Options — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
- Consequences — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
Numbering
Scan docs/adr/ for the highest existing number and increment by one.
When to offer an ADR
All three of these must be true:
- Hard to reverse — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
- Surprising without context — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
- The result of a real trade-off — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
What qualifies
- Architectural shape. "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
- Integration patterns between contexts. "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
- Technology choices that carry lock-in. Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library — just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
- Boundary and scope decisions. "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
- Deliberate deviations from the obvious path. "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
- Constraints not visible in the code. "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
- Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious. If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it — otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.