From 549c61fea934121f06cecb87e1f9a9ae3cb4b938 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Pierron Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 15:47:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] chore(skills): vendor grill-with-docs, to-prd and to-issues into the repo Copy the three authoring skills from the global skill set into .claude/skills/ so they are versioned and shared with the repo. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 --- .claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md | 47 ++++++++++ .../skills/grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md | 60 +++++++++++++ .claude/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md | 88 +++++++++++++++++++ .claude/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md | 83 +++++++++++++++++ .claude/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md | 74 ++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 352 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md create mode 100644 .claude/skills/grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md create mode 100644 .claude/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .claude/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .claude/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md diff --git a/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..da7e78e --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +# 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 + +```md +# {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 + +- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`) — useful when decisions are revisited +- **Considered Options** — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering +- **Consequences** —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: + +1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful +2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth 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 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. diff --git a/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eaf2a18 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +# CONTEXT.md Format + +## Structure + +```md +# {Context Name} + +{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.} + +## Language + +**Order**: +{A one or two sentence description of the term} +_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction + +**Invoice**: +A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery. +_Avoid_: Bill, payment request + +**Customer**: +A person or organization that places orders. +_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account +``` + +## Rules + +- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others under `_Avoid_`. +- **Keep definitions tight.** One or two sentences max. Define what it IS, not what it does. +- **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. +- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine. + +## Single vs multi-context repos + +**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root. + +**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other: + +```md +# Context Map + +## Contexts + +- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders +- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments +- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping + +## Relationships + +- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking +- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices +- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money` +``` + +The skill infers which structure applies: + +- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts +- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context +- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved + +When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask. diff --git a/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5ea0aa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +--- +name: grill-with-docs +description: Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions. +--- + + + +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. + + + + + +## 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). + +`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. + +### 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). + + diff --git a/.claude/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f6efbf --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +--- +name: to-issues +description: Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues. +--- + +# To Issues + +Break a plan into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets). + +The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not. + +## Process + +### 1. Gather context + +Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes an issue reference (issue number, URL, or path) as an argument, fetch it from the issue tracker and read its full body and comments. + +### 2. Explore the codebase (optional) + +If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching. + +### 3. Draft vertical slices + +Break the plan into **tracer bullet** issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer. + +Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible. + + +- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests) +- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own +- Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones + + +### 4. Quiz the user + +Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show: + +- **Title**: short descriptive name +- **Type**: HITL / AFK +- **Blocked by**: which other slices (if any) must complete first +- **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them) + +Ask the user: + +- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine) +- Are the dependency relationships correct? +- Should any slices be merged or split further? +- Are the correct slices marked as HITL and AFK? + +Iterate until the user approves the breakdown. + +### 5. Publish the issues to the issue tracker + +For each approved slice, publish a new issue to the issue tracker. Use the issue body template below. These issues are considered ready for AFK agents, so publish them with the correct triage label unless instructed otherwise. + +Publish issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers in the "Blocked by" field. + + +## Parent + +A reference to the parent issue on the issue tracker (if the source was an existing issue, otherwise omit this section). + +## What to build + +A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation. + +Avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it here and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits. + +## Acceptance criteria + +- [ ] Criterion 1 +- [ ] Criterion 2 +- [ ] Criterion 3 + +## Blocked by + +- A reference to the blocking ticket (if any) + +Or "None - can start immediately" if no blockers. + + + +Do NOT close or modify any parent issue. diff --git a/.claude/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ee758fd --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +--- +name: to-prd +description: Turn the current conversation context into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker. Use when user wants to create a PRD from the current context. +--- + +This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a PRD. Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know. + +The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not. + +## Process + +1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the PRD, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching. + +2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can. + +Check with the user that these seams match their expectations. + +3. Write the PRD using the template below, then publish it to the project issue tracker. Apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label - no need for additional triage. + + + +## Problem Statement + +The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective. + +## Solution + +The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective. + +## User Stories + +A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of: + +1. As an , I want a , so that + + +1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending + + +This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature. + +## Implementation Decisions + +A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include: + +- The modules that will be built/modified +- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified +- Technical clarifications from the developer +- Architectural decisions +- Schema changes +- API contracts +- Specific interactions + +Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly. + +Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits. + +## Testing Decisions + +A list of testing decisions that were made. Include: + +- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details) +- Which modules will be tested +- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase) + +## Out of Scope + +A description of the things that are out of scope for this PRD. + +## Further Notes + +Any further notes about the feature. + + From f58735c8b44528871f6b34c533d7f78a0614e816 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Pierron Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 15:49:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] docs(skills): fix pluralization typo in grill-with-docs ADR-FORMAT Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 --- .claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md index da7e78e..5c079df 100644 --- a/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md +++ b/.claude/skills/grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's no - **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. +- **Boundary and scope decisions.** "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit nos are as valuable as the yeses. - **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.