@athenaflow/plugin-matt-pocock-skills 0.1.1

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/triage-labels.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# Triage Labels
+
+The skills speak in terms of five canonical triage roles. This file maps those roles to the actual label strings used in this repo's issue tracker.
+
+| Label in mattpocock/skills | Label in our tracker | Meaning                                  |
+| -------------------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
+| `needs-triage`             | `needs-triage`       | Maintainer needs to evaluate this issue  |
+| `needs-info`               | `needs-info`         | Waiting on reporter for more information |
+| `ready-for-agent`          | `ready-for-agent`    | Fully specified, ready for an AFK agent  |
+| `ready-for-human`          | `ready-for-human`    | Requires human implementation            |
+| `wontfix`                  | `wontfix`            | Will not be actioned                     |
+
+When a skill mentions a role (e.g. "apply the AFK-ready triage label"), use the corresponding label string from this table.
+
+Edit the right-hand column to match whatever vocabulary you actually use.

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+name: tdd
+description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development
+
+## Philosophy
+
+**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
+
+**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
+
+**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
+
+See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+
+## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
+
+**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
+
+This produces **crap tests**:
+
+- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
+- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
+- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
+- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
+
+**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
+
+```
+WRONG (horizontal):
+  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
+  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
+
+RIGHT (vertical):
+  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
+  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
+  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
+  ...
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Planning
+
+When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+Before writing any code:
+
+- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
+- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
+- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
+- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
+- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
+- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
+
+Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
+
+**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
+
+### 2. Tracer Bullet
+
+Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
+
+```
+RED:   Write test for first behavior → test fails
+GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
+```
+
+This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
+
+### 3. Incremental Loop
+
+For each remaining behavior:
+
+```
+RED:   Write next test → fails
+GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
+```
+
+Rules:
+
+- One test at a time
+- Only enough code to pass current test
+- Don't anticipate future tests
+- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
+
+### 4. Refactor
+
+After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
+
+- [ ] Extract duplication
+- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
+- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
+- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
+- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
+
+**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
+
+## Checklist Per Cycle
+
+```
+[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
+[ ] Test uses public interface only
+[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
+[ ] Code is minimal for this test
+[ ] No speculative features added
+```

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/agents/claude.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+frontmatter:
+  user-invocable: true

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "TDD"
+  short_description: "Test-driven development with a red-green-refactor loop, one vertical slice at a time"
+  default_prompt: "Build this feature using red-green-refactor TDD, vertical slices only."

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/deep-modules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Deep Modules
+
+From "A Philosophy of Software Design":
+
+**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 interfaces, ask:
+
+- Can I reduce the number of methods?
+- Can I simplify the parameters?
+- Can I hide more complexity inside?

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/interface-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Interface Design 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

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/refactoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Refactor Candidates
+
+After TDD cycle, look for:
+
+- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
+- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
+- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
+- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
+- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
+- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/tdd/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/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.
+
+<vertical-slice-rules>
+- 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
+</vertical-slice-rules>
+
+### 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.
+
+<issue-template>
+## 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.
+
+</issue-template>
+
+Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/to-issues/agents/claude.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+frontmatter:
+  user-invocable: true

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/to-issues/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "To Issues"
+  short_description: "Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices"
+  default_prompt: "Break this PRD into vertical-slice issues with clear acceptance criteria."

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+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 major modules you will need to build or modify to complete the implementation. Actively look for opportunities to extract deep modules that can be tested in isolation.
+
+A deep module (as opposed to a shallow module) is one which encapsulates a lot of functionality in a simple, testable interface which rarely changes.
+
+Check with the user that these modules match their expectations. Check with the user which modules they want tests written for.
+
+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.
+
+<prd-template>
+
+## 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 <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>
+
+<user-story-example>
+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
+</user-story-example>
+
+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.
+
+</prd-template>

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/to-prd/agents/claude.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+frontmatter:
+  user-invocable: true

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/to-prd/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "To PRD"
+  short_description: "Synthesize the current conversation into a PRD on the issue tracker"
+  default_prompt: "Turn what we just discussed into a PRD and submit it as an issue."

package/dist/0.1.1/claude/plugin/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+# Writing Agent Briefs
+
+An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
+
+## Principles
+
+### Durability over precision
+
+The issue may sit in `ready-for-agent` for days or weeks. The codebase will change in the meantime. Write the brief so it stays useful even as files are renamed, moved, or refactored.
+
+- **Do** describe interfaces, types, and behavioral contracts
+- **Do** name specific types, function signatures, or config shapes that the agent should look for or modify
+- **Don't** reference file paths — they go stale
+- **Don't** reference line numbers
+- **Don't** assume the current implementation structure will remain the same
+
+### Behavioral, not procedural
+
+Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent will explore the codebase fresh and make its own implementation decisions.
+
+- **Good:** "The `SkillConfig` type should accept an optional `schedule` field of type `CronExpression`"
+- **Bad:** "Open src/types/skill.ts and add a schedule field on line 42"
+- **Good:** "When a user runs `/triage` with no arguments, they should see a summary of issues needing attention"
+- **Bad:** "Add a switch statement in the main handler function"
+
+### Complete acceptance criteria
+
+The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
+
+- **Good:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
+
+### Explicit scope boundaries
+
+State what is out of scope. This prevents the agent from gold-plating or making assumptions about adjacent features.
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** bug / enhancement
+**Summary:** one-line description of what needs to happen
+
+**Current behavior:**
+Describe what happens now. For bugs, this is the broken behavior.
+For enhancements, this is the status quo the feature builds on.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Describe what should happen after the agent's work is complete.
+Be specific about edge cases and error conditions.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- `TypeName` — what needs to change and why
+- `functionName()` return type — what it currently returns vs what it should return
+- Config shape — any new configuration options needed
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 3
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Thing that should NOT be changed or addressed in this issue
+- Adjacent feature that might seem related but is separate
+```
+
+## Examples
+
+### Good agent brief (bug)
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** bug
+**Summary:** Skill description truncation drops mid-word, producing broken output
+
+**Current behavior:**
+When a skill description exceeds 1024 characters, it is truncated at exactly
+1024 characters regardless of word boundaries. This produces descriptions
+that end mid-word (e.g. "Use when the user wants to confi").
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Truncation should break at the last word boundary before 1024 characters
+and append "..." to indicate truncation.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- The `SkillMetadata` type's `description` field — no type change needed,
+  but the validation/processing logic that populates it needs to respect
+  word boundaries
+- Any function that reads SKILL.md frontmatter and extracts the description
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Descriptions under 1024 chars are unchanged
+- [ ] Descriptions over 1024 chars are truncated at the last word boundary
+      before 1024 chars
+- [ ] Truncated descriptions end with "..."
+- [ ] The total length including "..." does not exceed 1024 chars
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Changing the 1024 char limit itself
+- Multi-line description support
+```
+
+### Good agent brief (enhancement)
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** enhancement
+**Summary:** Add `.out-of-scope/` directory support for tracking rejected feature requests
+
+**Current behavior:**
+When a feature request is rejected, the issue is closed with a `wontfix` label
+and a comment. There is no persistent record of the decision or reasoning.
+Future similar requests require the maintainer to recall or search for the
+prior discussion.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Rejected feature requests should be documented in `.out-of-scope/<concept>.md`
+files that capture the decision, reasoning, and links to all issues that
+requested the feature. When triaging new issues, these files should be
+checked for matches.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- Markdown file format in `.out-of-scope/` — each file should have a
+  `# Concept Name` heading, a `**Decision:**` line, a `**Reason:**` line,
+  and a `**Prior requests:**` list with issue links
+- The triage workflow should read all `.out-of-scope/*.md` files early
+  and match incoming issues against them by concept similarity
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Closing a feature as wontfix creates/updates a file in `.out-of-scope/`
+- [ ] The file includes the decision, reasoning, and link to the closed issue
+- [ ] If a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists, the new issue is
+      appended to its "Prior requests" list rather than creating a duplicate
+- [ ] During triage, existing `.out-of-scope/` files are checked and surfaced
+      when a new issue matches a prior rejection
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Automated matching (human confirms the match)
+- Reopening previously rejected features
+- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
+```
+
+### Bad agent brief
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Summary:** Fix the triage bug
+
+**What to do:**
+The triage thing is broken. Look at the main file and fix it.
+The function around line 150 has the issue.
+
+**Files to change:**
+- src/triage/handler.ts (line 150)
+- src/types.ts (line 42)
+```
+
+This is bad because:
+- No category
+- Vague description ("the triage thing is broken")
+- References file paths and line numbers that will go stale
+- No acceptance criteria
+- No scope boundaries
+- No description of current vs desired behavior