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>
92 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
3.4 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`.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
<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>
|