{"owner":"GreyDGL","repo":"PentestGPT","hasSkills":true,"totalSkillsCount":41,"totalTokensCount":37382,"categories":["anthropic-skill","claude-rule","project-spec"],"hasMcp":false,"mcpConfig":null,"found":[".agents/skills/ask-matt/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md",".agents/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md",".agents/skills/codebase-design/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md",".agents/skills/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md",".agents/skills/domain-modeling/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/grilling/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/handoff/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md",".agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/prototype/LOGIC.md",".agents/skills/prototype/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/prototype/UI.md",".agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/domain.md",".agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/issue-tracker-github.md",".agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/issue-tracker-gitlab.md",".agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/issue-tracker-local.md",".agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/triage-labels.md",".agents/skills/tdd/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/tdd/mocking.md",".agents/skills/tdd/refactoring.md",".agents/skills/tdd/tests.md",".agents/skills/teach/GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md",".agents/skills/teach/LEARNING-RECORD-FORMAT.md",".agents/skills/teach/MISSION-FORMAT.md",".agents/skills/teach/RESOURCES-FORMAT.md",".agents/skills/teach/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md",".agents/skills/triage/OUT-OF-SCOPE.md",".agents/skills/triage/SKILL.md",".agents/skills/writing-great-skills/GLOSSARY.md",".agents/skills/writing-great-skills/SKILL.md","CLAUDE.md","docs/architecture.md"],"skills":{".agents/skills/ask-matt/SKILL.md":"---\nname: ask-matt\ndescription: Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the user-invoked skills in this repo.\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\n# Ask Matt\n\nYou don't remember every skill, so ask.\n\nA **flow** is a path through the skills. Most paths run along one **main flow**, and two **on-ramps** merge onto it. Everything else is standalone.\n\n## The main flow: idea → ship\n\nThe route most work travels. You have an idea and want it built.\n\n1. **`/grill-with-docs`** — sharpen the idea by interview. Start here when you **have a codebase**: it's stateful, retaining what it learns in `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs. (No codebase? Use `/grill-me` — see Standalone.)\n2. **Branch — can you settle every question in conversation?** If a question needs a runnable answer (state, business logic, a UI you have to see), detour through a prototype, bridged by **`/handoff`** in both directions (see Crossing sessions):\n - **`/handoff`** out, then open a fresh session against that file,\n - **`/prototype`** to answer the question with throwaway code,\n - **`/handoff`** back what you learned, and reference it from the original idea thread.\n3. **Branch — is this a multi-session build?**\n - **Yes** → **`/to-prd`** (turn the thread into a PRD) → **`/to-issues`** (split the PRD into independently-grabbable issues). Because the issues are independent, **clear context between each one**: start a fresh session per issue and kick off **`/implement`** by passing it the PRD and the single issue to work on.\n - **No** → **`/implement`** right here, in the same context window.\n\n### Context hygiene\n\nKeep steps 1–3 in **one unbroken context window** — don't compact or clear until after `/to-issues` — so the grilling, PRD, and issues all build on the same thinking. Each `/implement` then starts fresh, working from the issue.\n\nThe limit on this is the **[smart zone](https://www.aihero.dev/ai-coding-dictionary/smart-zone)**: the window (~120k tokens on state-of-the-art models) within which the model still reasons sharply. If a session approaches it before `/to-issues`, don't push on degraded — `/handoff` and continue in a fresh thread.\n\n## On-ramps\n\nA starting situation that generates work, then merges onto the main flow.\n\n- **Bugs and requests piling up** → **`/triage`**. It moves issues through triage roles and produces agent-ready issues, which **`/implement`** later picks up.\n\n Triage is only for issues **you didn't create** — bug reports, incoming feature requests, anything that arrives raw. Issues that `/to-issues` produced are already agent-ready, so **don't triage them**.\n\n## Codebase health\n\nNot feature work — upkeep.\n\n- **`/improve-codebase-architecture`** — run whenever you have a spare moment to keep the codebase good for agents to operate in. It surfaces deepening opportunities; picking one _generates an idea_ you can take into the main flow at `/grill-with-docs`.\n\n## Crossing sessions\n\n- **`/handoff`** — when a thread is full or you need to branch off (e.g. into a `/prototype` session), this compacts the conversation into a markdown file. You don't continue in place — you **open a new session and reference that file** to carry the context across. It's the bridge between context windows, in either direction. Use it when you want a **fresh session** but need the **current conversation preserved**.\n- **`/compact`** (built-in) — stay in the **same conversation**, letting the earlier turns be summarized. Use it at **intentional breaks between phases**, when you don't mind losing the verbatim history. Don't compact mid-phase — the agent can lose its way. `/handoff` forks; `/compact` continues.\n\n## Standalone\n\nOff the main flow entirely.\n\n- **`/grill-me`** — the same relentless interview as `/grill-with-docs`, but for when you have **no codebase**. Stateless: it saves nothing locally, builds no `CONTEXT.md`. Reach for it to sharpen any plan or design that doesn't live in a repo.\n- **`/teach`** — learn a concept over multiple sessions, using the current directory as a stateful workspace.\n- **`/writing-great-skills`** — reference for writing and editing skills well.\n\n## Precondition\n\n**`/setup-matt-pocock-skills`** — run before your first engineering flow to configure the issue tracker, triage labels, and doc layout the other skills assume. Custom issue trackers also work.\n",".agents/skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md":"# Deepening\n\nHow to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.\n\n## Dependency categories\n\nWhen assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.\n\n### 1. In-process\n\nPure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable — merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.\n\n### 2. Local-substitutable\n\nDependencies that have local test stand-ins (PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the stand-in exists. The deepened module is tested with the stand-in running in the test suite. The seam is internal; no port at the module's external interface.\n\n### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters)\n\nYour own services across a network boundary (microservices, internal APIs). Define a **port** (interface) at the seam. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected as an **adapter**. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses an HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.\n\nRecommendation shape: *\"Define a port at the seam, implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic sits in one deep module even though it's deployed across a network.\"*\n\n### 4. True external (Mock)\n\nThird-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port; tests provide a mock adapter.\n\n## Seam discipline\n\n- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a port unless at least two adapters are justified (typically production + test). A single-adapter seam is just indirection.\n- **Internal seams vs external seams.** A deep module can have internal seams (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the external seam at its interface. Don't expose internal seams through the interface just because tests use them.\n\n## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer\n\n- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist — delete them.\n- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.\n- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.\n- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.\n",".agents/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md":"# Design It Twice\n\nWhen the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on \"Design It Twice\" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.\n\nUses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Frame the problem space\n\nBefore spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:\n\n- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy\n- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))\n- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete\n\nShow this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.\n\n### 2. Spawn sub-agents\n\nSpawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.\n\nPrompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:\n\n- Agent 1: \"Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point.\"\n- Agent 2: \"Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension.\"\n- Agent 3: \"Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial.\"\n- Agent 4 (if applicable): \"Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies.\"\n\nInclude both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.\n\nEach sub-agent outputs:\n\n1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)\n2. Usage example showing how callers use it\n3. What the implementation hides behind the seam\n4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))\n5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin\n\n### 3. Present and compare\n\nPresent designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.\n\nAfter comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.\n",".agents/skills/codebase-design/SKILL.md":"---\nname: codebase-design\ndescription: Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.\n---\n\n# Codebase Design\n\nDesign **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface. Use this language and these principles wherever code is being designed or restructured. The aim is leverage for callers, locality for maintainers, and testability for everyone.\n\n## Glossary\n\nUse these terms exactly — don't substitute \"component,\" \"service,\" \"API,\" or \"boundary.\" Consistent language is the whole point.\n\n**Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service.\n\n**Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — they refer only to the type-level surface).\n\n**Implementation** — what's inside a module, its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for \"adapter\" when the seam is the topic; \"implementation\" otherwise.\n\n**Depth** — leverage at the interface: the amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.\n\n**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_ — a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. Where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it. _Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).\n\n**Adapter** — a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).\n\n**Leverage** — what callers get from depth: more capability per unit of interface they learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.\n\n**Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.\n\n## Deep vs shallow\n\n**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation:\n\n```\n┌─────────────────────┐\n│ Small Interface │ ← Few methods, simple params\n├─────────────────────┤\n│ │\n│ Deep Implementation│ ← Complex logic hidden\n│ │\n└─────────────────────┘\n```\n\n**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid):\n\n```\n┌─────────────────────────────────┐\n│ Large Interface │ ← Many methods, complex params\n├─────────────────────────────────┤\n│ Thin Implementation │ ← Just passes through\n└─────────────────────────────────┘\n```\n\nWhen designing an interface, ask:\n\n- Can I reduce the number of methods?\n- Can I simplify the parameters?\n- Can I hide more complexity inside?\n\n## Principles\n\n- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts — they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.\n- **The 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.\n- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.\n- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.\n\n## Designing for testability\n\nGood interfaces make testing natural:\n\n1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them.**\n\n ```typescript\n // Testable\n function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}\n\n // Hard to test\n function processOrder(order) {\n const gateway = new StripeGateway();\n }\n ```\n\n2. **Return results, don't produce side effects.**\n\n ```typescript\n // Testable\n function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}\n\n // Hard to test\n function applyDiscount(cart): void {\n cart.total -= discount;\n }\n ```\n\n3. **Small surface area.** Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup.\n\n## Relationships\n\n- A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests).\n- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.\n- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.\n- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.\n- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.\n\n## Rejected framings\n\n- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.\n- **\"Interface\" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow — interface here includes every fact a caller must know.\n- **\"Boundary\"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.\n\n## Going deeper\n\n- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies** — see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing.\n- **Exploring alternative interfaces** — see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.\n",".agents/skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md":"---\nname: diagnosing-bugs\ndescription: Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says \"diagnose\"/\"debug this\", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.\n---\n\n# Diagnosing Bugs\n\nA discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.\n\nWhen exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.\n\n## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop\n\n**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug — one that goes red on _this_ bug — you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.\n\nSpend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**\n\n### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order\n\n1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.\n2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.\n3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.\n4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.\n5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.\n6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.\n7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is \"sometimes wrong output\", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.\n8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate \"boot at state X, check, repeat\" so you can `git bisect run` it.\n9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.\n10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.\n\nBuild the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.\n\n### Tighten the loop\n\nTreat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it:\n\n- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)\n- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not \"didn't crash\".)\n- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)\n\nA 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight — a debugging superpower.\n\n### Non-deterministic bugs\n\nThe goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.\n\n### When you genuinely cannot build a loop\n\nStop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.\n\n### Completion criterion — a tight loop that goes red\n\nPhase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** — a script path, a test invocation, a curl — that you have **already run at least once** (paste the invocation and its output), and that is:\n\n- [ ] **Red-capable** — it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not \"runs without erroring\" — it must be able to _catch this specific bug_.\n- [ ] **Deterministic** — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above).\n- [ ] **Fast** — seconds, not minutes.\n- [ ] **Agent-runnable** — you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`.\n\nIf you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop — jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2.\n\n## Phase 2 — Reproduce + minimise\n\nRun the loop. Watch it go red — the bug appears.\n\nConfirm:\n\n- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.\n- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).\n- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.\n\n### Minimise\n\nOnce it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut — keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.\n\nWhy bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.\n\nDone when **every remaining element is load-bearing** — removing any one of them makes the loop go green.\n\nDo not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised.\n\n## Phase 3 — Hypothesise\n\nGenerate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.\n\nEach hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.\n\n> Format: \"If is the cause, then will make the bug disappear / will make it worse.\"\n\nIf you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.\n\n**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly (\"we just deployed a change to #3\"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.\n\n## Phase 4 — Instrument\n\nEach probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**\n\nTool preference:\n\n1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.\n2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.\n3. Never \"log everything and grep\".\n\n**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.\n\n**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.\n\n## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test\n\nWrite the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.\n\nA correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.\n\n**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.\n\nIf a correct seam exists:\n\n1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.\n2. Watch it fail.\n3. Apply the fix.\n4. Watch it pass.\n5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.\n\n## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem\n\nRequired before declaring done:\n\n- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)\n- [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)\n- [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix)\n- [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)\n- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message — so the next debugger learns\n\n**Then ask: what would have prevented this bug?** If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to the `/improve-codebase-architecture` skill with the specifics. Make the recommendation **after** the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started.\n",".agents/skills/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md":"# ADR Format\n\nADRs live in `docs/adr/` and use sequential numbering: `0001-slug.md`, `0002-slug.md`, etc.\n\nCreate the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.\n\n## Template\n\n```md\n# {Short title of the decision}\n\n{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}\n```\n\nThat'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.\n\n## Optional sections\n\nOnly include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.\n\n- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`) — useful when decisions are revisited\n- **Considered Options** — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering\n- **Consequences** — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out\n\n## Numbering\n\nScan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one.\n\n## When to offer an ADR\n\nAll three of these must be true:\n\n1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful\n2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will look at the code and wonder \"why on earth did they do it this way?\"\n3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons\n\nIf 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.\"\n\n### What qualifies\n\n- **Architectural shape.** \"We're using a monorepo.\" \"The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres.\"\n- **Integration patterns between contexts.** \"Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP.\"\n- **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.\n- **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.\n- **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.\n- **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.\"\n- **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.\n",".agents/skills/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md":"# CONTEXT.md Format\n\n## Structure\n\n```md\n# {Context Name}\n\n{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}\n\n## Language\n\n**Order**:\n{A one or two sentence description of the term}\n_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction\n\n**Invoice**:\nA request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.\n_Avoid_: Bill, payment request\n\n**Customer**:\nA person or organization that places orders.\n_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account\n```\n\n## Rules\n\n- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others under `_Avoid_`.\n- **Keep definitions tight.** One or two sentences max. Define what it IS, not what it does.\n- **Only include terms specific to this project's context.** General programming concepts (timeouts, error types, utility patterns) don't belong even if the project uses them extensively. Before adding a term, ask: is this a concept unique to this context, or a general programming concept? Only the former belongs.\n- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine.\n\n## Single vs multi-context repos\n\n**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root.\n\n**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other:\n\n```md\n# Context Map\n\n## Contexts\n\n- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders\n- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments\n- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping\n\n## Relationships\n\n- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking\n- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices\n- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money`\n```\n\nThe skill infers which structure applies:\n\n- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts\n- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context\n- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved\n\nWhen multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.\n",".agents/skills/domain-modeling/SKILL.md":"---\nname: domain-modeling\ndescription: Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when the user wants to pin down domain terminology or a ubiquitous language, record an architectural decision, or when another skill needs to maintain the domain model.\n---\n\n# Domain Modeling\n\nActively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the *active* discipline — challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely *reading* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill — that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.)\n\n## File structure\n\nMost repos have a single context:\n\n```\n/\n├── CONTEXT.md\n├── docs/\n│ └── adr/\n│ ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md\n│ └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md\n└── src/\n```\n\nIf a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:\n\n```\n/\n├── CONTEXT-MAP.md\n├── docs/\n│ └── adr/ ← system-wide decisions\n├── src/\n│ ├── ordering/\n│ │ ├── CONTEXT.md\n│ │ └── docs/adr/ ← context-specific decisions\n│ └── billing/\n│ ├── CONTEXT.md\n│ └── docs/adr/\n```\n\nCreate 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.\n\n## During the session\n\n### Challenge against the glossary\n\nWhen 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?\"\n\n### Sharpen fuzzy language\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\n### Discuss concrete scenarios\n\nWhen 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.\n\n### Cross-reference with code\n\nWhen 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?\"\n\n### Update CONTEXT.md inline\n\nWhen 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).\n\n`CONTEXT.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.\n\n### Offer ADRs sparingly\n\nOnly offer to create an ADR when all three are true:\n\n1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful\n2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder \"why did they do it this way?\"\n3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons\n\nIf any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).\n",".agents/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md":"---\nname: grill-me\ndescription: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\nRun a `/grilling` session.\n",".agents/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md":"---\nname: grill-with-docs\ndescription: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go.\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\nRun a `/grilling` session, using the `/domain-modeling` skill.\n",".agents/skills/grilling/SKILL.md":"---\nname: grilling\ndescription: Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan before building, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.\n---\n\nInterview 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.\n\nAsk the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing. Asking multiple questions at once is bewildering.\n\nIf a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.\n",".agents/skills/handoff/SKILL.md":"---\nname: handoff\ndescription: Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.\nargument-hint: \"What will the next session be used for?\"\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\nWrite a handoff document summarising the current conversation so a fresh agent can continue the work. Save to the temporary directory of the user's OS - not the current workspace.\n\nInclude a \"suggested skills\" section in the document, which suggests skills that the agent should invoke.\n\nDo not duplicate content already captured in other artifacts (PRDs, plans, ADRs, issues, commits, diffs). Reference them by path or URL instead.\n\nRedact any sensitive information, such as API keys, passwords, or personally identifiable information.\n\nIf the user passed arguments, treat them as a description of what the next session will focus on and tailor the doc accordingly.\n",".agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md":"# HTML Report Format\n\nThe architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the OS temp directory. Tailwind and Mermaid both come from CDNs. Mermaid handles graph-shaped diagrams reliably; hand-built divs and inline SVG handle the more editorial visuals (mass diagrams, cross-sections). Mix the two — don't lean on Mermaid for everything, it'll start to look generic.\n\n## Scaffold\n\n```html\n\n\n \n \n Architecture review — {{repo name}}\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n
...
\n
...
\n
...
\n
\n \n\n```\n\n## Header\n\nRepo name, date, and a compact legend: solid box = module, dashed line = seam, red arrow = leakage, thick dark box = deep module. No introduction paragraph — straight into the candidates.\n\n## Candidate card\n\nThe diagrams carry the weight. Prose is sparse, plain, and uses the glossary terms (from the `/codebase-design` skill) without ceremony.\n\nEach candidate is one `
`:\n\n- **Title** — short, names the deepening (e.g. \"Collapse the Order intake pipeline\").\n- **Badge row** — recommendation strength (`Strong` = emerald, `Worth exploring` = amber, `Speculative` = slate), plus a tag for the dependency category (`in-process`, `local-substitutable`, `ports & adapters`, `mock`).\n- **Files** — monospaced list, `font-mono text-sm`.\n- **Before / After diagram** — the centrepiece. Two columns, side by side. See patterns below.\n- **Problem** — one sentence. What hurts.\n- **Solution** — one sentence. What changes.\n- **Wins** — bullets, ≤6 words each. e.g. \"Tests hit one interface\", \"Pricing logic stops leaking\", \"Delete 4 shallow wrappers\".\n- **ADR callout** (if applicable) — one line in an amber-tinted box.\n\nNo paragraphs of explanation. If the diagram needs a paragraph to be understood, redraw the diagram.\n\n## Diagram patterns\n\nPick the pattern that fits the candidate. Mix them. Don't make every diagram look the same — variety is part of the point.\n\n### Mermaid graph (the workhorse for dependencies / call flow)\n\nUse a Mermaid `flowchart` or `graph` when the point is \"X calls Y calls Z, and look at the mess.\" Wrap it in a Tailwind-styled card so it doesn't feel parachuted in. Style with classDef to colour leakage edges red and the deep module dark. Sequence diagrams work well for \"before: 6 round-trips; after: 1.\"\n\n```html\n
\n 
\n    flowchart LR\n      A[OrderHandler] --> B[OrderValidator]\n      B --> C[OrderRepo]\n      C -.leak.-> D[PricingClient]\n      classDef leak stroke:#dc2626,stroke-width:2px;\n      class C,D leak\n
\n
\n```\n\n### Hand-built boxes-and-arrows (when Mermaid's layout fights you)\n\nModules as `
`s with borders and labels. Arrows as inline SVG `` or `` elements positioned absolutely over a relative container. Reach for this when you want the \"after\" diagram to feel like one thick-bordered deep module with greyed-out internals — Mermaid won't render that with the right weight.\n\n### Cross-section (good for layered shallowness)\n\nStack horizontal bands (`h-12 border-l-4`) to show layers a call passes through. Before: 6 thin layers each doing nothing. After: 1 thick band labelled with the consolidated responsibility.\n\n### Mass diagram (good for \"interface as wide as implementation\")\n\nTwo rectangles per module — one for interface surface area, one for implementation. Before: interface rectangle is nearly as tall as the implementation rectangle (shallow). After: interface rectangle is short, implementation rectangle is tall (deep).\n\n### Call-graph collapse\n\nBefore: a tree of function calls rendered as nested boxes. After: the same tree collapsed into one box, with the now-internal calls shown faded inside it.\n\n## Style guidance\n\n- Lean editorial, not corporate-dashboard. Generous whitespace. Serif optional for headings (`font-serif` works well with stone/slate).\n- Colour sparingly: one accent (emerald or indigo) plus red for leakage and amber for warnings.\n- Keep diagrams ~320px tall so before/after sits comfortably side by side without scrolling.\n- Use `text-xs uppercase tracking-wider` for module labels inside diagrams — they should read as schematic, not as UI.\n- The only scripts are the Tailwind CDN and the Mermaid ESM import. The report is otherwise static — no app code, no interactivity beyond Mermaid's own rendering.\n\n## Top recommendation section\n\nOne larger card. Candidate name, one sentence on why, anchor link to its card. That's it.\n\n## Tone\n\nPlain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from the `/codebase-design` skill. Concision is not an excuse to drift.\n\n**Use exactly:** module, interface, implementation, depth, deep, shallow, seam, adapter, leverage, locality.\n\n**Never substitute:** component, service, unit (for module) · API, signature (for interface) · boundary (for seam) · layer, wrapper (for module, when you mean module).\n\n**Phrasings that fit the style:**\n\n- \"Order intake module is shallow — interface nearly matches the implementation.\"\n- \"Pricing leaks across the seam.\"\n- \"Deepen: one interface, one place to test.\"\n- \"Two adapters justify the seam: HTTP in prod, in-memory in tests.\"\n\n**Wins bullets** name the gain in glossary terms: *\"locality: bugs concentrate in one module\"*, *\"leverage: one interface, N call sites\"*, *\"interface shrinks; implementation absorbs the wrappers\"*. Don't write *\"easier to maintain\"* or *\"cleaner code\"* — those terms aren't in the glossary and don't earn their place.\n\nNo hedging, no throat-clearing, no \"it's worth noting that…\". If a sentence could be a bullet, make it a bullet. If a bullet could be cut, cut it. If a term isn't in the `/codebase-design` glossary, reach for one that is before inventing a new one.\n",".agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md":"---\nname: improve-codebase-architecture\ndescription: Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\n# Improve Codebase Architecture\n\nSurface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.\n\nThis command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:\n\n- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and its principles (the deletion test, \"the interface is the test surface\", \"one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real\"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into \"component,\" \"service,\" \"API,\" or \"boundary.\"\n- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Explore\n\nRead the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.\n\nThen 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:\n\n- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?\n- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?\n- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)?\n- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?\n- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?\n\nApply 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.\n\n### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report\n\nWrite a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from `$TMPDIR`, falling back to `/tmp` (or `%TEMP%` on Windows), and write to `/architecture-review-.html` so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — `xdg-open ` on Linux, `open ` on macOS, `start ` on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.\n\nThe report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.\n\nFor each candidate, render a card with:\n\n- **Files** — which files/modules are involved\n- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction\n- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change\n- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve\n- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening\n- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge\n\nEnd the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.\n\n**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the `/codebase-design` vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines \"Order,\" talk about \"the Order intake module\" — not \"the FooBarHandler,\" and not \"the Order service.\"\n\n**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 in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _\"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…\"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.\n\nSee [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.\n\nDo NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: \"Which of these would you like to explore?\"\n\n### 3. Grilling loop\n\nOnce the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the design tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.\n\nSide effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — run the `/domain-modeling` skill to keep the domain model current as you go:\n\n- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md`. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.\n- **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.\n- **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.\n- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Run the `/codebase-design` skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.\n",".agents/skills/prototype/LOGIC.md":"# Logic Prototype\n\nA tiny interactive terminal app that lets the user drive a state model by hand. Use this when the question is about **business logic, state transitions, or data shape** — the kind of thing that looks reasonable on paper but only feels wrong once you push it through real cases.\n\n## When this is the right shape\n\n- \"I'm not sure if this state machine handles the edge case where X then Y.\"\n- \"Does this data model actually let me represent the case where...\"\n- \"I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it.\"\n- Anything where the user wants to **press buttons and watch state change**.\n\nIf the question is \"what should this look like\" — wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md).\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. State the question\n\nBefore writing code, write down what state model and what question you're prototyping. One paragraph, in the prototype's README or a comment at the top of the file. A logic prototype that answers the wrong question is pure waste — make the question explicit so it can be checked later, whether the user is watching now or returning to it AFK.\n\n### 2. Pick the language\n\nUse whatever the host project uses. If the project has no obvious runtime (e.g. a docs repo), ask.\n\nMatch the project's existing conventions for tooling — don't add a new package manager or runtime just for the prototype.\n\n### 3. Isolate the logic in a portable module\n\nPut the actual logic — the bit that's answering the question — behind a small, pure interface that could be lifted out and dropped into the real codebase later. The TUI around it is throwaway; the logic module shouldn't be.\n\nThe right shape depends on the question:\n\n- **A pure reducer** — `(state, action) => state`. Good when actions are discrete events and state is a single value.\n- **A state machine** — explicit states and transitions. Good when \"which actions are even legal right now\" is part of the question.\n- **A small set of pure functions** over a plain data type. Good when there's no implicit current state — just transformations.\n- **A class or module with a clear method surface** when the logic genuinely owns ongoing internal state.\n\nPick whichever shape best fits the question being asked, *not* whichever is easiest to wire to a TUI. Keep it pure: no I/O, no terminal code, no `console.log` for control flow. The TUI imports it and calls into it; nothing flows the other direction.\n\nThis is what makes the prototype useful past its own lifetime. When the question's been answered, the validated reducer / machine / function set can be lifted into the real module — the TUI shell gets deleted.\n\n### 4. Build the smallest TUI that exposes the state\n\nBuild it as a **lightweight TUI** — on every tick, clear the screen (`console.clear()` / `print(\"\\033[2J\\033[H\")` / equivalent) and re-render the whole frame. The user should always see one stable view, not an ever-growing scrollback.\n\nEach frame has two parts, in this order:\n\n1. **Current state**, pretty-printed and diff-friendly (one field per line, or formatted JSON). Use **bold** for field names or section headers and **dim** for less important context (timestamps, IDs, derived values). Native ANSI escape codes are fine — `\\x1b[1m` bold, `\\x1b[2m` dim, `\\x1b[0m` reset. No need to pull in a styling library unless one is already in the project.\n2. **Keyboard shortcuts**, listed at the bottom: `[a] add user [d] delete user [t] tick clock [q] quit`. Bold the key, dim the description, or vice-versa — whatever reads cleanly.\n\nBehaviour:\n\n1. **Initialise state** — a single in-memory object/struct. Render the first frame on start.\n2. **Read one keystroke (or one line)** at a time, dispatch to a handler that mutates state.\n3. **Re-render** the full frame after every action — don't append, replace.\n4. **Loop until quit.**\n\nThe whole frame should fit on one screen.\n\n### 5. Make it runnable in one command\n\nAdd a script to the project's existing task runner (`package.json` scripts, `Makefile`, `justfile`, `pyproject.toml`). The user should run `pnpm run ` or equivalent — never need to remember a path.\n\nIf the host project has no task runner, just put the command at the top of the prototype's README.\n\n### 6. Hand it over\n\nGive the user the run command. They'll drive it themselves; the interesting moments are when they say \"wait, that shouldn't be possible\" or \"huh, I assumed X would be different\" — those are the bugs in the _idea_, which is the whole point. If they want new actions added, add them. Prototypes evolve.\n\n### 7. Capture the answer\n\nWhen the prototype has done its job, the answer to the question is the only thing worth keeping. If the user is around, ask what it taught them. If not, leave a `NOTES.md` next to the prototype so the answer can be filled in (or filled in by you, if you've watched the session) before the prototype gets deleted.\n\n## Anti-patterns\n\n- **Don't add tests.** A prototype that needs tests is no longer a prototype.\n- **Don't wire it to the real database.** Use an in-memory store unless the question is specifically about persistence.\n- **Don't generalise.** No \"what if we wanted to support X later.\" The prototype answers one question.\n- **Don't blur the logic and the TUI together.** If the reducer / state machine references `console.log`, prompts, or terminal escape codes, it's no longer portable. Keep the TUI as a thin shell over a pure module.\n- **Don't ship the TUI shell into production.** The shell is optimised for being driven by hand from a terminal. The logic module behind it is the bit worth keeping.\n",".agents/skills/prototype/SKILL.md":"---\nname: prototype\ndescription: Build a throwaway prototype to flesh out a design — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations toggleable from one route.\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\n# Prototype\n\nA prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides the shape.\n\n## Pick a branch\n\nIdentify which question is being answered — from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:\n\n- **\"Does this logic / state model feel right?\"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a tiny interactive terminal app that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper.\n- **\"What should this look like?\"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.\n\nThe two branches produce very different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.\n\n## Rules that apply to both\n\n1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious — but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.\n2. **One command to run.** Whatever the project's existing task runner supports — `pnpm `, `python `, `bun `, etc. The user must be able to start it without thinking.\n3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear \"PROTOTYPE — wipe me\" name.\n4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast and then delete it.\n5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.\n6. **Delete or absorb when done.** When the prototype has answered its question, either delete it or fold the validated decision into the real code — don't leave it rotting in the repo.\n\n## When done\n\nThe _answer_ is the only thing worth keeping from a prototype. Capture it somewhere durable (commit message, ADR, issue, or a `NOTES.md` next to the prototype) along with the question it was answering. If the user is around, that capture is a quick conversation; if not, leave the placeholder so they (or you, on the next pass) can fill in the verdict before deleting the prototype.\n",".agents/skills/prototype/UI.md":"# UI Prototype\n\nGenerate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.\n\nIf the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).\n\n## When this is the right shape\n\n- \"What should this page look like?\"\n- \"I want to see a few options for this dashboard before committing.\"\n- \"Try a different layout for the settings screen.\"\n- Any time the user would otherwise spend a day picking between three vague mockups in their head.\n\n## Two sub-shapes — strongly prefer sub-shape A\n\nA UI prototype is much easier to judge when it's **butting up against the rest of the app** — real header, real sidebar, real data, real density. A throwaway route on its own is a vacuum: every variant looks fine in isolation. Default to sub-shape A whenever there's a plausible existing page to host the variants. Only reach for sub-shape B if the prototype genuinely has no nearby home.\n\n### Sub-shape A — adjustment to an existing page (preferred)\n\nThe route already exists. Variants are rendered **on the same route**, gated by a `?variant=` URL search param. The existing data fetching, params, and auth all stay — only the rendering swaps. This is the default; pick it unless there's a specific reason not to.\n\nIf the prototype is for something that doesn't yet have a page but *would naturally live inside one* (a new section of the dashboard, a new card on the settings screen, a new step in an existing flow) — that's still sub-shape A. Mount the variants inside the host page.\n\n### Sub-shape B — a new page (last resort)\n\nOnly use this when the thing being prototyped genuinely has no existing page to live inside — e.g. an entirely new top-level surface, or a flow that can't be embedded anywhere sensible.\n\nCreate a **throwaway route** following whatever routing convention the project already uses — don't invent a new top-level structure. Name it so it's obviously a prototype (e.g. include the word `prototype` in the path or filename). Same `?variant=` pattern.\n\nBefore committing to sub-shape B, sanity-check: is there really no existing page this could be embedded in? An empty route hides design problems that a populated one would expose.\n\nIn both sub-shapes the floating bottom bar is identical.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. State the question and pick N\n\nDefault to **3 variants**. More than 5 stops being radically different and starts being noise — cap there.\n\nWrite down the plan in one line, in the prototype's location or a top-of-file comment:\n\n> \"Three variants of the settings page, switchable via `?variant=`, on the existing `/settings` route.\"\n\nThis works whether the user is here to push back or not.\n\n### 2. Generate radically different variants\n\nDraft each variant. Hold each one to:\n\n- The page's purpose and the data it has access to.\n- The project's component library / styling system (TailwindCSS, shadcn, MUI, plain CSS, whatever).\n- A clear exported component name, e.g. `VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`.\n\nVariants must be **structurally different** — different layout, different information hierarchy, different primary affordance, not just different colours. Three slightly-tweaked card grids isn't a UI prototype, it's wallpaper. If two drafts come out too similar, redo one with explicit \"do not use a card grid\" guidance.\n\n### 3. Wire them together\n\nCreate a single switcher component on the route:\n\n```tsx\n// pseudo-code — adapt to the project's framework\nconst variant = searchParams.get('variant') ?? 'A';\nreturn (\n <>\n {variant === 'A' && }\n {variant === 'B' && }\n {variant === 'C' && }\n \n \n);\n```\n\nFor sub-shape A (existing page): keep all the existing data fetching above the switcher; only the rendered subtree changes per variant.\n\nFor sub-shape B (new page): the throwaway route under `/prototype/` mounts the same switcher.\n\n### 4. Build the floating switcher\n\nA small fixed-position bar at the bottom-centre of the screen with three pieces:\n\n- **Left arrow** — cycles to the previous variant (wraps around).\n- **Variant label** — shows the current variant key and, if the variant exports a name, that name too. e.g. `B — Sidebar layout`.\n- **Right arrow** — cycles forward (wraps around).\n\nBehaviour:\n\n- Clicking an arrow updates the URL search param (use the framework's router — `router.replace` on Next, `navigate` on React Router, etc) so the variant is shareable and reload-stable.\n- Keyboard: `←` and `→` arrow keys also cycle. Don't intercept arrow keys when an ``, `