# A.I.M. Advanced **For you, the person reading this:** paste this whole document into your AI and send it. Add nothing. Your AI installs A.I.M. Advanced and tells you how to start. From then on, in any chat, type `/aim-advanced`. Then type /aim-advanced aim-setup to choose your tools and lanes. If your AI works in a terminal, you can also save this as `AIM-ADVANCED-PACK.md` and say: "read AIM-ADVANCED-PACK.md and follow it". It may ask you to approve creating a few files in your home folder; say yes. That is the install. Everything below is for the AI. --- ## For the AI reading this You are installing a skill called **aim-advanced**. Everything you need is in this document. Do not fetch anything from the internet for this, and do not install anything else. Work in order, then show the person one short card. ### 1. Where are you? Answer silently: Can you create files on this computer? Can you run commands? Which tool are you (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Copilot, Cursor, Antigravity, Windsurf, OpenCode, ChatGPT, Gemini, claude.ai, other)? ### 2a. You can create files (a coding tool) Write the 25 files below exactly as given, keeping the paths. The skill folder goes here: | You are | Skill folder | |---|---| | Codex, Gemini CLI, Copilot (CLI or VS Code), Cursor, Windsurf, OpenCode, most others | `~/.agents/skills/aim-advanced/` | | Claude Code | `~/.claude/skills/aim-advanced/` | | Antigravity | `~/.gemini/config/skills/aim-advanced/` | Writing into a folder your tool does not read is harmless. When unsure, write `~/.agents/skills/aim-advanced/` and your own folder both. Then add the **always-on line** (end of this document) once to your global instructions file, under a heading `## A.I.M. Advanced`. Create the file if it is missing; if the heading is already there, leave it. | You are | Global instructions file | |---|---| | Claude Code | `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md` | | Codex | `~/.codex/AGENTS.md` | | Gemini CLI, Antigravity | `~/.gemini/GEMINI.md` | | Copilot CLI or VS Code | `~/.copilot/copilot-instructions.md` | | Windsurf | `~/.devin/global_rules.md` | | OpenCode | `~/.config/opencode/AGENTS.md` | | Cursor | No file. Ask the person to paste the line into Settings → Rules → User Rules. | Verify: list the skill folder (25 files), read back the first line of each, and confirm the always-on line is in the instructions file. Report what you found, not what you intended. ### 2b. You cannot create files (web chat) The skill becomes a Project or Gem. Give the person these steps as one card, then hand them each file as plain text when they ask ("give me file 2"), with nothing added. - **claude.ai**: Create a Project named **A.I.M. Advanced**. Project instructions ← the text of `SKILL.md`. Add the other 24 files as project files. Settings → Instructions for Claude ← the always-on line. (If "Code execution and file creation" is on, you may instead package the 25 files as a zip for upload under Customize → Skills.) - **ChatGPT**: Create a Project named **A.I.M. Advanced**. Instructions ← `SKILL.md`. Files ← the other 24 files. Settings → Personalization → Custom instructions ← the always-on line. - **Gemini**: Gem manager → New Gem named **A.I.M. Advanced**. Instructions ← `SKILL.md`. Knowledge ← the other 24 files. Settings → Saved info ← the always-on line. If you see a Skills option instead of Gems, use that. If the instructions box is too small for SKILL.md (some limit it to a few thousand characters), put this one line in the instructions instead, and upload SKILL.md as a file with the others: "You run the A.I.M. Advanced skill. Its full text is SKILL.md in this project's files: read it at the start of every chat and follow it exactly. The other files are its reference files." Say plainly: in a web chat the planning flows (interviews, specs, tickets, reviews) work fully; building and testing code needs a coding tool. ### 2c. Nothing persists here Reading this document is also an install. Say so, and offer to run `/aim-advanced` right now in this chat. Next time, they paste the document again. ### 3. Finish Show one card: - **Installed:** where (paths, or the project or Gem name) - **Start:** `/aim-advanced` in Claude Code, Copilot, Cursor, Antigravity or Windsurf; `$aim-advanced` in Codex; "use the aim-advanced skill" in Gemini CLI or OpenCode; open the A.I.M. Advanced project in a web chat - **Always on:** when they start a sizeable build, their AI offers the planning flows once - **Try it now:** open a new chat and type `/aim-advanced` --- ## The 25 files Each file starts with a line `===== FILE: =====` and ends with `===== END FILE =====`. Write the text between those lines, unchanged. ===== FILE: aim-advanced/SKILL.md ===== --- name: aim-advanced description: A.I.M. advanced kit, paste-pack edition. Routes to the planning and build flows stored in this folder. Use when the student types /aim-advanced, or names one of the flows (aim-setup, grilling, grill-with-docs, wayfinder, to-spec, to-tickets, implement, tdd, code-review, retro, handoff, prototype, domain-modeling, codebase-design, research). --- # A.I.M. advanced kit (paste-pack edition) This folder holds several flows, each in its own subfolder with its own `SKILL.md`. When the student names a flow, read `/SKILL.md` from this folder and follow it exactly. When a flow says "call the Skill tool with X", read `X/SKILL.md` from this folder instead. Start with `aim-setup` if `~/.aim/lanes.md` does not exist. | Flow | Use it to | |---|---| | aim-setup | first run: find your AI tools, choose lanes and a token rule | | grill-with-docs | sharpen a plan by interview, writing a glossary and decision notes | | wayfinder | map a large, foggy project into decisions | | to-spec, to-tickets | turn settled decisions into a spec, then small tickets | | implement, tdd | build a ticket test-first | | code-review | review a change against standards and the spec | | prototype | try an idea quickly before committing to it | | retro, handoff | learn from a session; hand it to a fresh one | This edition has no delegate skills and no orchestrator: those need small programs that a paste pack cannot carry. Install the full kit with `npx skills add` or the Claude Code plugin to get them. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/aim-setup/SKILL.md ===== --- name: aim-setup description: First-run setup for the A.I.M. advanced kit. Finds which AI coding tools the student has on this computer, asks which tool should do which kind of work, and writes the student's own lane map and token rule to ~/.aim/. Use when the student types /aim-setup, says "set up the advanced kit", or when another skill in this kit finds no ~/.aim/lanes.md. --- # A.I.M. setup You set up the kit for one student, on their own computer, with their own tools. Nothing here is anyone else's choice. Keep every message short and plain. One question at a time. ## Hard rules - Never sign in, create API keys, buy plans or change billing. If a tool is missing or signed out, say what the student would do, and move on. - Never read the student's chats, keys or tokens. Detection only checks that a program exists and whether it reports being signed in. - Write only the two files below, and only after the student says yes to what you show. - Every delegate in this kit drives another AI with the student's own account and costs. Say this once, plainly, before the lane question. ## 1. Find the tools If you can run commands, run the detector that ships with this kit (Node 18 or newer): ```bash node /skills/delegate-setup/scripts/discover.mjs ``` `` is the folder this skill was installed from (look for `delegate-setup` next to this skill's folder). It prints JSON: each found tool with `key`, `version`, `authenticated`. If the detector is not there (the paste-pack edition has none), Node is missing, or you cannot run commands, ask instead: "Which of these do you have installed and signed in: Claude Code, Codex, GitHub Copilot CLI, Antigravity (agy), Kimi Code, OpenCode, ZCode?" **Filter before you show anything.** The detector reports more tools than this kit supports. Keep only entries whose `key` is one of: `claude`, `codex`, `copilot`, `agy`, `kimi`, `opencode`, `zcode`. Drop the rest from every list and every question; if any were found, add one line at the end: "Also found, but this kit has no skill for: ." Show the kept tools as one short list: found and signed in / found but signed out / not found. ## 2. Ask for the lanes A **lane** is which AI tool does which kind of work. Ask one question per kind of work, and offer only kit tools that are found and signed in. Recommend one, and say why in a few words. | Kind of work | What it means | |---|---| | lead | the tool you talk to; it plans, briefs and checks | | build | writes the code for a clear task | | tests | writes and fixes tests | | research | reads long files or docs and summarises | | review | a second opinion on a change, ideally a different AI family from build | "None, do it myself in the lead tool" is always a valid answer. If only one tool is set up, say so: every lane is that tool, and that is fine. ## 3. Ask for the token rule Long AI sessions cost more with every message. Offer three choices and recommend safe for a first course: - **Safe:** warn before any step that adds more than ~20k tokens; write a handoff and start a fresh session at about half the tool's context window. - **Stretch:** warn above ~50k; hand off at about 70% of the window; let the tool compact. - **Wildcard:** no warnings; rely on the tool's own compaction; check usage yourself each day. ## 4. Show, then write Show both files in full. Write them only on a clear yes. `~/.aim/lanes.md`: ```markdown # My lanes (written by aim-setup on YYYY-MM-DD) | Work | Tool | Delegate skill | Model (optional) | |---|---|---|---| | lead | ... | (this chat) | | | build | ... | ...-delegate | | | tests | ... | ...-delegate | | | research | ... | ...-delegate | | | review | ... | ...-delegate | | Every delegate runs on my own account and spends my own credits or plan limits. Tools not listed here are not set up. Do not use them. ``` `~/.aim/profile.md`: ```markdown # My token rule (written by aim-setup on YYYY-MM-DD) Choice: safe | stretch | wildcard Rule: ``` Then read both files back and confirm they exist. ## 5. Finish One short card: - **Lanes:** the table, one line per lane - **Token rule:** the choice - **Next:** `/orchestrate ` for a project, `/delegate ` for one task, or `delegate-setup` if you want project-level lane priorities (p1 to p4) for `/orchestrate` - **Change later:** run `/aim-setup` again; it rewrites both files after you approve ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/code-review/SKILL.md ===== --- name: code-review description: "Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\"." --- Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies: - **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards? - **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec? Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. ## Process ### 1. Pin the fixed point Whatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it. Capture the diff command once: `git diff ...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log ..HEAD --oneline`. Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse `) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents. ### 2. Identify the spec source Look for the originating spec, in this order: 1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.), fetched via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. 2. A path the user passed as an argument. 3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature. 4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available". ### 3. Identify the standards sources Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`. On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it: - **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell. - **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces. Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff: - **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky. - **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both. - **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies. - **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that. - **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type. - **Repeated Switches**: the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share. - **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module. - **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason. - **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows. - **Message Chains**: long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object. - **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct. - **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition. ### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel **Standards sub-agent prompt** should include: - The full diff command and commit list. - The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it). - The brief: "Report, per file/hunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words." **Spec sub-agent prompt** should include: - The diff command and commit list. - The path or fetched contents of the spec. - The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words." If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report. ### 5. Aggregate Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_). End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent. ## Why two axes A change can pass one axis and fail the other: - Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.** - Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.** Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/codebase-design/SKILL.md ===== --- name: codebase-design description: 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. --- # Codebase Design Design **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. ## Glossary Use these terms exactly: don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point. **Module**: anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service. **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). **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. **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. **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). **Adapter**: a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside). **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. **Locality**: what maintainers get from depth. Change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere. ## Deep vs shallow **Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation: ``` ┌─────────────────────┐ │ Small Interface │ ← Few methods, simple params ├─────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Deep Implementation│ ← Complex logic hidden │ │ └─────────────────────┘ ``` **Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid): ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ Large Interface │ ← Many methods, complex params ├─────────────────────────────────┤ │ Thin Implementation │ ← Just passes through └─────────────────────────────────┘ ``` When designing an interface, ask: - Can I reduce the number of methods? - Can I simplify the parameters? - Can I hide more complexity inside? ## Principles - **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. - **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. - **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. - **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it. ## Designing for testability Good interfaces make testing natural: 1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them.** ```typescript // Testable function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {} // Hard to test function processOrder(order) { const gateway = new StripeGateway(); } ``` 2. **Return results, don't produce side effects.** ```typescript // Testable function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {} // Hard to test function applyDiscount(cart): void { cart.total -= discount; } ``` 3. **Small surface area.** Fewer methods = fewer tests needed. Fewer params = simpler test setup. ## Relationships - A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests). - **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**. - A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives. - An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**. - **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers. ## Rejected framings - **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead. - **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow: interface here includes every fact a caller must know. - **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**. ## Going deeper - **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies**, see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing. - **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. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/domain-modeling/SKILL.md ===== --- name: domain-modeling description: Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a GLOSSARY.md, or recording or editing an ADR. --- # Domain Modeling Actively 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* `GLOSSARY.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.) ## File structure Most repos have a single context: ``` / ├── GLOSSARY.md ├── docs/ │ └── adr/ │ ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md │ └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md └── src/ ``` If a `GLOSSARY-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives: ``` / ├── GLOSSARY-MAP.md ├── docs/ │ └── adr/ ← system-wide decisions ├── src/ │ ├── ordering/ │ │ ├── GLOSSARY.md │ │ └── docs/adr/ ← context-specific decisions │ └── billing/ │ ├── GLOSSARY.md │ └── docs/adr/ ``` Create files lazily: only when you have something to write. If no `GLOSSARY.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 `GLOSSARY.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 GLOSSARY.md inline When a term is resolved, update `GLOSSARY.md` right there. Don't batch these up: capture them as they happen. Use the format in [GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md](./GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md). `GLOSSARY.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `GLOSSARY.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). ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md ===== --- name: grill-with-docs description: A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go. disable-model-invocation: true --- Call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling". ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/grilling/SKILL.md ===== --- name: grilling description: Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases. --- Interview the user relentlessly until you reach a shared understanding. Map this as a **design tree**: every decision branches into the decisions that hang off it. Work the tree in **rounds**. The **frontier** is every decision whose prerequisites are already settled: the questions you can ask _now_ without guessing at answers you haven't heard yet. Ask the whole frontier in one round: number each question and give your recommended answer. Then wait for the user's answers before the next round. Format a round like so: ``` ❓ **Q1** - ****: ➡️ --- ❓ **Q2** - ****: ➡️ ``` Each round the user answers reshapes the tree: settled decisions push the frontier outward and unblock questions that depended on them. Recompute the frontier and ask the next round. A question whose answer depends on another question still open in this round belongs to a _later_ round, not this one. Finding _facts_ is your job, never the user's. When a frontier question needs a fact from the environment (filesystem, tools, etc.), dispatch a sub-agent to find it; don't ask the user for anything you could look up yourself. Don't block on it: a running exploration is an unsettled prerequisite, so only the questions downstream of it wait for the sub-agent to report; ask the rest of the frontier now. The _decisions_ are the user's: put each to them and wait. The session is done when the frontier is empty: every branch of the design tree visited, nothing left silently assumed. Do not act on it until the user confirms you have reached a shared understanding. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/handoff/SKILL.md ===== --- name: handoff description: Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up. argument-hint: "What will the next session be used for?" disable-model-invocation: true --- Write 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 (`$TMPDIR`, else `/tmp`; `%TEMP%` on Windows) - not the current workspace. Include a "suggested skills" section in the document, naming which skills the next agent should call the Skill tool for. Do not duplicate content already captured in other artifacts (specs, plans, ADRs, issues, commits, diffs). Reference them by path or URL instead. Redact any sensitive information, such as API keys, passwords, or personally identifiable information. If the user passed arguments, treat them as a description of what the next session will focus on and tailor the doc accordingly. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/implement/SKILL.md ===== --- name: implement description: "Implement a piece of work based on a spec or set of tickets." disable-model-invocation: true --- Implement the work described by the user in the spec or tickets. Call the Skill tool with "tdd" where possible, at pre-agreed seams. Run typechecking regularly, single test files regularly, and the full test suite once at the end. Once done, call the Skill tool with "code-review" to review the work. Commit your work to the current branch. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/prototype/SKILL.md ===== --- name: prototype description: Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like. --- # Prototype A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides the shape. ## Pick a branch Identify which question is being answered, using the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around: - **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a single shareable HTML file (free-play buttons plus tabbed guided walkthroughs) that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper, and that a non-developer can drive. - **"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. The two branches produce very different artifacts, so 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. ## Rules that apply to both 1. **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. 2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner: `pnpm `, `python `, `bun `, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it. 3. **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. 4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast. 5. **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. 6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/research/SKILL.md ===== --- name: research description: Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent. --- Spin up a **background agent** to do the research, so you keep working while it reads. Its job: 1. Investigate the question against **primary sources** (official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs), not a secondary write-up of them. Follow every claim back to the source that owns it. 2. Write the findings to a single Markdown file, citing each claim's source. 3. Save it where the repo already keeps such notes; match the existing convention, and if there is none, put it somewhere sensible and say where. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/retro/SKILL.md ===== --- name: retro description: "Conduct a retrospective on a coding session." disable-model-invocation: true --- The user has asked for a **retrospective**. You are suggesting improvements to the coding agent's **environment** to improve future runs. ## Steps 1. Call the Skill tool with `writing-for-agents` for the writing style guide. 2. Read the primary sources for the session the user specifies. This may mean searching through session logs on this machine. If the user doesn't specify a session, default to the current one. 3. Look for candidates for improvement in these categories. - **Navigation**: how easy was it for the agent to find the right files? Are there hidden dependencies between files? Would a **navigation pointer** make it easier? _Use when_ the session took a long time to find a piece of information. - **Automated checks**: are there automated checks that could catch errors the agent made? Linting, typing, tests, filesystem linters? Read the repo's own check command first (its `package.json`/build-tool `lint`/`check` scripts, its CI workflow), so a check that already exists but sits unwired or silently broken is the finding, not a reinvention. A repo with no **guardrail** (no pre-commit hook and no CI job running its lint/typecheck/test command) is itself a finding: an un-linted repo is a standing missed opportunity, not a neutral default. _Use when_ the agent made a mistake an automated check could have caught, or the repo has no guardrail at all. - **Coding standards**: should the **reviewer agent** be given a new rule to enforce? Should an existing rule be removed or clarified? Classify the violation first: a **mechanical** one (a fixed syntactic pattern, a banned API, an import shape, a file-location rule) gets a deterministic check, full stop: a custom rule in the repo's own linter, a new pre-commit hook, or a new CI job, whichever the repo's language and existing guardrail make cheapest. Default to building the check over writing the rule. Reserve `CODING_STANDARDS.md` for genuine **judgement calls** (cross-file consistency, "matches the surrounding style," anything no guardrail could ever substitute for). _Use when_ the reviewer agent failed to catch a mistake. - **Global AGENTS.md**: are there any steering instructions that should be moved to coding standards (or automated checks) instead? _Use when_ the AGENTS.md file is particularly large - in the repo OR the user's global scope. - **Tool economy**: did the agent make expensive tool calls that could be streamlined? Is there any custom tooling (CLI's, MCP's) that is particularly token-inefficient? _Use when_ the agent made an expensive tool call. - **No-ops**: look for instructions in steering files that don't modify the agent's behavior. _Use when_ the steering files are large and unwieldy. - **Information access**: look for opportunities to increase the agent's access to information. Teeing dev server logs, readonly access to third-party services. _Use when_ a crucial piece of information was not available to the agent. 4. Present these candidates to the user, in order of severity. ## Reference ### Implementation vs Review Remember that all work goes through two stages: implementation and review. The implementation agent has the most **context pressure**. They are responsible for exploration, writing code, and debugging failures. The review agent has the least context pressure - it receives a diff, so no exploration needed. It often does not need to write code or debug. This means that the review agent should be responsible for imposing coding standards, not the implementation agent. ### Files You have access to several files in the repo: - `CLAUDE.md`/`AGENTS.md`: these files are pushed to the context window of any agent working in this repo. They should be used incredibly sparingly, usually only for **navigation pointers** to other files. - `CODING_STANDARDS.md`: this file is read during review, not implementation. Add **navigation pointers** to docs folders if the standards file gets more than 1,000 lines long. - Docs: use docs as references files, pointed to by other files. Look for existing docs before writing new ones. - Skills: use skills for docs (since their description goes into the agent's context window), or for user-invoked commands. Follow the advice in the `writing-for-agents` skill. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/tdd/SKILL.md ===== --- name: tdd description: Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests. --- # Test-Driven Development TDD is the red → green loop. This skill is the reference that makes that loop produce tests worth keeping: what a good test is, where tests go, the anti-patterns, and the rules of the loop. Every section applies on every cycle: consult them before and during the loop, not after. When exploring the codebase, read `GLOSSARY.md` (if it exists) so test names and interface vocabulary match the project's domain language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching. ## What a good test is Tests verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't. A good test reads like a specification: "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists, and it survives refactors because it doesn't care about internal structure. See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines. ## Seams: where tests go A **seam** is the public boundary you test at: the interface where you observe behavior without reaching inside. Tests live at seams, never against internals. **Test only at pre-agreed seams.** Before writing any test, write down the seams under test and confirm them with the user. No test is written at an unconfirmed seam. You can't test everything, so agreeing the seams up front is how testing effort lands on the critical paths and complex logic instead of every edge case. Ask: "What's the public interface, and which seams should we test?" When the shape of that interface is itself in question (how deep the module is, where the seam belongs, what the interface should expose), call the Skill tool with "codebase-design" for the vocabulary. It is the shared source of the module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage and locality terms, and it is a reference to consult, not a session to run. ## Anti-patterns - **Implementation-coupled**: mocks internal collaborators, tests private methods, or verifies through a side channel (querying the database instead of using the interface). The tell: the test breaks when you refactor but behavior hasn't changed. - **Tautological**: the assertion recomputes the expected value the way the code does (`expect(add(a, b)).toBe(a + b)`, a snapshot derived by hand the same way, a constant asserted equal to itself), so it passes by construction and can never disagree with the code. Expected values must come from an independent source of truth: a known-good literal, a worked example, the spec. - **Horizontal slicing**: writing all tests first, then all implementation. Bulk tests verify _imagined_ behavior: you test the _shape_ of things rather than user-facing behavior, the tests go insensitive to real changes, and you commit to test structure before understanding the implementation. Work in **vertical slices** instead: one test → one implementation → repeat, each test a **tracer bullet** that responds to what the last cycle taught you. ## Rules of the loop - **Red before green.** Write the failing test first, then only enough code to pass it. Don't anticipate future tests or add speculative features. - **One slice at a time.** One seam, one test, one minimal implementation per cycle. - **Refactoring is not part of the loop.** It belongs to the review stage (see the `code-review` skill), not the red → green implementation cycle. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/to-spec/SKILL.md ===== --- name: to-spec description: "Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker: no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed." disable-model-invocation: true --- This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a spec. Do NOT interview the user; just synthesize what you already know. The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. ## 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 spec, 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. The fewer seams across the codebase, the better - the ideal number is one. Check with the user that these seams match their expectations. 3. Write the spec 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 spec. ## Further Notes Any further notes about the feature. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/to-tickets/SKILL.md ===== --- name: to-tickets description: Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker (edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker). disable-model-invocation: true --- # To Tickets Break a plan, spec, or conversation into a set of **tickets**: tracer-bullet vertical slices, each declaring the tickets that **block** it. The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. ## Process ### 1. Gather context Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes a reference (a spec path, an issue number or URL) as an argument, fetch it 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. Ticket titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching. Look for opportunities to prefactor the code to make the implementation easier. "Make the change easy, then make the easy change." ### 3. Draft vertical slices Break the work into **tracer bullet** tickets. - Each slice cuts a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests): vertical, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer - A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own - Each slice is sized to fit in a single fresh context window - Any prefactoring should be done first Give each ticket its **blocking edges**: the other tickets that must complete before it can start. A ticket with no blockers can start immediately. **Wide refactors are the exception to vertical slicing.** A **wide refactor** is one mechanical change (rename a column, retype a shared symbol) whose **blast radius** fans across the whole codebase, so a single edit breaks thousands of call sites at once and no vertical slice can land green. Don't force it into a tracer bullet; sequence it as **expand–contract**. First expand: add the new form beside the old so nothing breaks. Then migrate the call sites over in batches sized by blast radius (per package, per directory), each batch its own ticket blocked by the expand, keeping CI green batch to batch because the old form still exists. Finally contract: delete the old form once no caller remains, in a ticket blocked by every migrate batch. When even the batches can't stay green alone, keep the sequence but let them share an integration branch that all block a final integrate-and-verify ticket; green is promised only there. ### 4. Quiz the user Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each ticket, show: - **Title**: short descriptive name - **Blocked by**: which other tickets (if any) must complete first - **What it delivers**: the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work Ask the user: - Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine) - Are the blocking edges correct: does each ticket only depend on tickets that genuinely gate it? - Should any tickets be merged or split further? Iterate until the user approves the breakdown. ### 5. Publish the tickets to the configured tracker Publish the approved tickets. **How** depends on the tracker `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` configured; the tickets are the same either way, only the shape of the blocking edges changes: - **Local files** → write one file per ticket under `.scratch//issues/-.md`, numbered from `01` in dependency order (blockers first). Each file's "Blocked by" lists the numbers/titles it depends on. Use the per-ticket file template below: one ticket per file, never a single combined file. - **A real issue tracker (GitHub, Linear, …)** → publish one issue per ticket in dependency order (blockers first) so each ticket's blocking edges can reference real identifiers. Use the platform's native blocking relationship where it has one; otherwise set each ticket's "Blocked by" to the blocking issues. If the source was an existing issue, make each ticket its sub-issue (tracker doc's operation). Apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label unless instructed otherwise; the tickets are agent-grabbable by construction. Work the **frontier**: any ticket whose blockers are all done. For a purely linear chain that means top to bottom. Do NOT close or modify any parent issue. # : **What to build:** the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective, not a layer-by-layer implementation list. **Blocked by:** the numbers/titles of the tickets that gate this one, or "None (can start immediately)". **Status:** ready-for-agent - [ ] Acceptance criterion 1 - [ ] Acceptance criterion 2 ## Parent A reference to the parent issue on the tracker (if the source was an existing issue, otherwise omit this section). ## What to build The end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective, not layer-by-layer implementation. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Criterion 1 - [ ] Criterion 2 ## Blocked by - A reference to each blocking ticket, or "None (can start immediately)". Omit this section when blockers were set as native edges. In either form, 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 and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts, not a working demo, just the important bits. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/wayfinder/SKILL.md ===== --- name: wayfinder description: Plan a huge chunk of work (more than one agent session can hold) as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear. disable-model-invocation: true --- A loose idea has arrived, too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog: the way from here to the **destination** isn't visible yet. Wayfinding is about finding that way, not charging at the destination. This skill charts the way as a **shared map** on the repo's issue tracker, then works its **decision tickets** (questions whose resolution is a decision, not slices of a build to execute) one at a time until the route is clear. The destination varies per effort, and naming it is the first act of charting: it shapes every ticket. It might be a spec to hand off and iterate on, a decision to lock before planning starts, or a change made in place like a data-structure migration. The map is domain-agnostic: engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape. ## Plan, don't do Wayfinder is **planning** by default: each ticket resolves a decision, and the map is done when the way is clear, with nothing left to decide before someone goes and does the thing. The pull to just do the work is usually the signal you've reached the edge of the map and it's time to hand off. An effort can override this in its **Notes**, carrying execution into the map itself, but absent that, produce decisions, not deliverables. ## Refer by name Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a **name**: its title. In everything the human reads (narration, the map's Decisions-so-far), refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of `#42, #43, #44` is illegible; names read at a glance. The id and URL don't vanish; a name wraps its link, but they ride _inside_ the name, never stand in for it. ## The Map The map is a single issue on this repo's issue tracker, labelled `wayfinder:map`, the canonical artifact. Its tickets are child issues of the map. The map is an **index**, not a store. It lists the decisions made and points at the tickets that hold their detail; a decision lives in exactly one place, its ticket, so the map never restates it, only gists it and links. **Where the map, its child tickets, blocking, and frontier queries physically live is tracker-specific.** The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. Consult the tracker doc's "Wayfinding operations" section for how _this_ repo expresses them. If no tracker has been provided, default to the local-markdown tracker. ### The map body The whole map at low resolution, loaded once per session. Open tickets are **not** listed: they are open child issues, found by query. ```markdown ## Destination ## Notes ## Decisions so far - [](link): ## Not yet specified ## Out of scope ``` ### Tickets Each ticket is a **child issue** of the map; the tracker's issue id is its identity. Its body is the question, sized to one 100K token agent session: ```markdown ## Question ``` Each ticket carries a `wayfinder:` label, one of `research`, `prototype`, `grilling`, `task` (see [Ticket Types](#ticket-types)). A session **claims** a ticket by assigning it to the dev driving the map, **first**, before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it. That assignee _is_ the claim: an open, unassigned ticket is unclaimed. Blocking uses the tracker's **native** dependency relationship: essential because it renders the frontier _visually_ in the tracker's own UI, so the human sees what's takeable without opening the map. Only a tracker that lacks native blocking falls back to a body convention. A ticket is **unblocked** when every ticket blocking it is closed; the **frontier** is the open, unblocked, unclaimed children, the edge of the known. The answer isn't part of the body; it's recorded on resolution (see [Work through the map](#work-through-the-map)). Assets created while resolving a ticket are linked from the issue, not pasted in. ## Ticket Types Every ticket is either **HITL** (human in the loop, worked _with_ a human who speaks for themselves) or **AFK**, driven by the agent alone. A HITL ticket only resolves through that live exchange; the agent never stands in for the human's side of it (a grilling agent that answers its own questions has broken this). - **Research** (AFK): Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases to surface a fact a decision waits on. Resolved by a subagent that calls the Skill tool with "research". Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required. - **Prototype** (HITL): Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to (an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code) by calling the Skill tool with "prototype". Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question. - **Grilling** (HITL): Conversation. The default case. Always call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling". - **Task** (HITL or AFK): Manual work that must happen before a _decision_ can be made: nothing to decide, prototype, or research, but the discussion is blocked until it's done. Signing up for a service so its API can be judged, provisioning access, moving data so its shape can be seen. This is the one type that _does_ rather than decides, and it earns its place by unblocking a decision, not by delivering the destination. The agent drives it alone where it can (AFK); otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist (HITL). Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on. ## Fog of war The map is _deliberately_ incomplete: don't chart what you can't yet see. Beyond the live tickets lies the **fog of war**: the dim view of decisions and investigations you can tell are coming but can't yet pin down, because they hang on questions still open. Resolving a ticket clears the fog ahead of it, graduating whatever's now specifiable into fresh tickets, one at a time, until the way to the destination is clear and no tickets remain. The map's **Not yet specified** section is where that dim view is written down: the suspected question, the area to revisit later. It's the undiscovered frontier _toward_ the destination: everything here is in scope, just not sharp enough to ticket. Write as loosely or as fully as the view allows; it doubles as a signpost for collaborators reading where the effort is headed. **Fog or ticket?** The test is whether you can state the question precisely now, _not_ whether you can answer it now. - **Ticket when** the question is already sharp, even if it's blocked and you can't act on it yet. - **Not yet specified when** you can't yet phrase it that sharply. Don't pre-slice the fog into ticket-sized pieces: it's coarser than a ticket, and one patch may graduate into several tickets, or none, once the frontier reaches it. **Not yet specified** excludes what's already decided (Decisions so far), what's already a live ticket, and what's out of scope (the next section). ## Out of scope Fog only ever gathers _toward_ the destination. The destination fixes the scope, so work beyond it is **out of scope**: it isn't fog, and it doesn't belong in **Not yet specified**. It gets its own **Out of scope** section on the map: work you've consciously ruled out of _this_ effort. Scope, not sharpness, lands it here. Out-of-scope work never graduates (the frontier stops at the destination), so it returns only if the destination is redrawn, and then as a fresh effort, not a resumption. Ruling something out of scope is a scoping act, not a step on the route. When a ticket that already exists turns out to sit past the destination (mis-scoped in while charting, or exposed by a resolution), **close it** (a closed ticket is unambiguously off the frontier) and leave one line in the **Out of scope** section: the gist plus why it's out of scope, linking the closed ticket. It stays out of **Decisions so far**, which records the route actually walked; a scope boundary isn't a step on it. ## Invocation Two modes. Either way, **never resolve more than one ticket per session**, with the exception of research tickets. ### Chart the map User invokes with a loose idea. 1. **Name the destination.** Call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling", to pin down what this map is finding its way to: the spec, decision, or change. The destination fixes the scope, so it's settled first. 2. **Map the frontier.** Grill again, **breadth-first** this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now. **If this surfaces no fog** (the way to the destination is already clear, the whole journey small enough for one session), you don't need a map. Stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed. 3. **Create the map** (label `wayfinder:map`): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into **Not yet specified**. 4. **Create the tickets you can specify now** as child issues of the map, then wire blocking edges in a **second pass** (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the fog: the **Not yet specified** section. 5. **Fire the research subagents.** For each `research` ticket you just created, spin up a subagent that calls the Skill tool with "research" to resolve it in parallel, capturing its findings on a throwaway `research/` branch with a context pointer from the ticket. 6. Stop: charting is one session's work; it hand-resolves nothing. ### Work through the map User invokes with a map (URL or number). A ticket is **optional**: without one, you pick the next decision, not the user. 1. Load the **map**: the low-res view, not every ticket body. 2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise take the first frontier ticket in order. **Claim it**: assign it to yourself before any work. 3. Resolve it. **Zoom as needed**: fetch the full body of any related or closed ticket on demand; call the Skill tool for whichever skills the `## Notes` block names. If in doubt, call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling". 4. Record the resolution: post the answer as a **resolution comment**, **close** the issue, and **append a context pointer** to the map's Decisions-so-far. 5. Add newly-surfaced tickets (create-then-wire); graduate any fog the answer has made specifiable, clearing each graduated patch from **Not yet specified** so it lives only as its new ticket. If the answer reveals that a ticket (this one or another) sits beyond the destination, **rule it out of scope** rather than resolving it on the route. If the decision invalidates other parts of the map, update or delete those tickets. The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md ===== # Deepening How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**. ## Dependency categories When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam. ### 1. In-process Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable: merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed. ### 2. Local-substitutable Dependencies 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. ### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters) Your 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. Recommendation 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."* ### 4. True external (Mock) Third-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. ## Seam discipline - **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. - **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. ## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer - Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist; delete them. - Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**. - Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state. - Tests should survive internal refactors, since they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md ===== # Design It Twice When 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. Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**. ## Process ### 1. Frame the problem space Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate: - The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy - The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md)) - A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints, not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel. ### 2. Spawn sub-agents Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module. Prompt 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: - Agent 1: "Minimize the interface: aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point." - Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility: support many use cases and extension." - Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller: make the default case trivial." - Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies." Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and GLOSSARY.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language. Each sub-agent outputs: 1. Interface (types, methods, params, plus invariants, ordering, error modes) 2. Usage example showing how callers use it 3. What the implementation hides behind the seam 4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md)) 5. Trade-offs: where leverage is high, where it's thin ### 3. Present and compare Present 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**. After 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. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md ===== # 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. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/domain-modeling/GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md ===== # GLOSSARY.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 `GLOSSARY.md` at the repo root. **Multiple contexts:** A `GLOSSARY-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other: ```md # Glossary Map ## Contexts - [Ordering](./src/ordering/GLOSSARY.md): receives and tracks customer orders - [Billing](./src/billing/GLOSSARY.md): generates invoices and processes payments - [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/GLOSSARY.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 `GLOSSARY-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts - If only a root `GLOSSARY.md` exists, single context - If neither exists, create a root `GLOSSARY.md` lazily when the first term is resolved When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask. ===== END FILE ===== ===== FILE: aim-advanced/prototype/LOGIC.md ===== # Logic Prototype A single, self-contained HTML file (a **shareable demo**) that lets anyone drive a state model by clicking buttons. 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. Because it's one file with nothing to install, you can hand it to a non-developer (a designer, a PM, a domain expert) and let them feel the model for themselves. So it speaks their language, not the code's. ## When this is the right shape - "I'm not sure if this state machine handles the edge case where X then Y." - "Does this data model actually let me represent the case where..." - "I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it." - Anything where someone wants to **press buttons and watch state change**. If the question is "what should this look like," this is the wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md). ## Process ### 1. State the question Before writing code, write down what state model and what question you're prototyping. One paragraph, at the top of the demo (in a visible intro, not just a comment). A logic prototype that answers the wrong question is pure waste, so make the question explicit so it can be checked later, whether the user is watching now or returning to it AFK. ### 2. Isolate the logic in a portable module Put the actual logic (the bit that's answering the question) in a single `