@boyingliu01/xp-gate 0.15.5 → 0.18.0

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/delphi-review/references/requirements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+# Requirements Mode Reference
+
+> Extracted from `SKILL.md`. This file contains ALL content specific to the `requirements` mode of Delphi Review.
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+需求评审模式，用于 grill-with-docs 完成共享理解后、设计文档生成前，对需求完整性进行轻量级多专家 Delphi 评审。
+
+**触发命令**: `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+
+**设计背景**: Issue #368 识别出原始意图中"需求评审一次 + 设计评审一次"的第一次评审被完全丢弃。本模式恢复该评审点，在需求探索（grill-with-docs）与设计文档生成之间插入一道轻量质量门禁。
+
+**定位**:
+- **轻量**: 2 专家（architecture + feasibility）、最多 1 轮（循环语义下最多 2 轮）
+- **需求焦点**: 评审对象是需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md，不是设计文档或代码
+- **程序化阻塞**: 输出 `requirements-reviewed.json`，由 `phase-transition 2 completed` 校验
+- **防陈旧绑定**: `requirements_hash`（SHA-256）绑定需求内容，防止旧证据复用
+
+---
+
+## Five Core Properties
+
+1. **匿名性** — Expert A/B 互不知道对方意见（Round 1）
+2. **迭代共识** — GAPS_FOUND 时回到 grill-with-docs 补充，最多 2 轮循环
+3. **关键缺口零容忍** — Critical requirement gaps 必须在进入设计前解决
+4. **防陈旧绑定** — requirements_hash 绑定需求内容 + CONTEXT.md，旧证据不可复用
+5. **轻量但严格** — 2 专家配置，但共识要求 2/2（100%），不因轻量而降标
+
+---
+
+## 触发条件
+
+- **自动触发**: sprint-flow Phase 2 THINK 链中，grill-with-docs 完成后、设计文档生成前（参见 `skills/sprint-flow/references/phase-2-design.md` Step 2）
+- **手动触发**: `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+
+**⚠️ 重要调用方式说明**:
+
+- ✅ **正确**: sprint-flow 编排层在 Phase 2 Step 2 自动调用
+- ✅ **正确**: 在 Agent session 中执行 `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+- ❌ **错误**: 在设计文档已生成后调用（应在设计前）
+- ❌ **错误**: 用 requirements 模式评审设计文档或代码（那是 design / code-walkthrough 模式的职责）
+
+**与 sprint-flow 的集成**:
+
+```
+sprint-flow Phase 2 THINK:
+  Step 0: CONTEXT.md 预检
+  Step 1: grill-with-docs（需求访谈）
+  Step 2: delphi-review --mode requirements  ← 本模式
+  Step 3: 原生设计文档生成
+  Step 4: HARD-GATE（用户审批设计文档）
+```
+
+**lightweight sprint 例外**: 当 `change_type == "修改已存在代码"` 时，sprint-flow 跳过 R1 需求评审，需求维度合并入 R2 设计评审。
+
+---
+
+## 流程概览
+
+```
+grill-with-docs (completed)
+    │
+    ▼
+delphi-review --mode requirements
+    │
+    ├─→ Context gather: CONTEXT.md + grill session summary + user requirements statement
+    │
+    ├─→ Expert A (architecture) anonymous review — focus: requirements completeness,
+    │                                              requirement→AC coverage, scenario coverage
+    │
+    ├─→ Expert B (feasibility) anonymous review — focus: testability of acceptance criteria,
+    │                                              user persona clarity, scope boundaries
+    │
+    ├─→ Consensus check
+    │      │
+    │      ├─→ Both APPROVED → write requirements-reviewed.json verdict=APPROVED
+    │      │
+    │      └─→ Either GAPS_FOUND → record gaps, set verdict=GAPS_FOUND
+    │
+    └─→ Return to sprint-flow orchestrator
+         │
+         ├─→ APPROVED → proceed to design doc generation
+         └─→ GAPS_FOUND → loop back to grill-with-docs (1 more round, max 2 total)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 专家角色
+
+| 专家 | 视角 | 配置 |
+|------|------|------|
+| Expert A (architecture) | 需求完整性 + 需求→AC 映射 + 场景覆盖 | `.delphi-config.json` → `experts.architecture` |
+| Expert B (feasibility) | AC 可测试性 + 用户画像 + 范围边界 | `.delphi-config.json` → `experts.feasibility` |
+
+> ⚠️ **注意**: requirements 模式**不使用** technical 专家。技术实现细节属于设计/实现阶段（design / code-walkthrough 模式），不属于需求评审范畴。
+
+> ⚠️ **注意**: 至少配置 **两个不同 provider** 的模型。详见 [INSTALL.md](./INSTALL.md)。
+
+**专家选择理由**（设计决策 §16.4 C3）:
+- **architecture 专家**: 天然映射范围/覆盖到需求层面——需求完整性、需求→AC 映射、场景覆盖、领域术语一致性
+- **feasibility 专家**: 天然映射可测试性/假设到验收标准——AC 可测试性、用户画像清晰度、范围边界、隐含假设
+- **technical 专家**: 排除——技术实现细节在需求阶段尚未确定，评审无意义
+
+---
+
+## 评审焦点（模式切换指令）
+
+### Expert A (architecture) — 需求模式焦点
+
+| 维度 | 检查内容 |
+|------|---------|
+| **需求完整性** | 所有用户场景是否已覆盖，是否有遗漏的用例路径 |
+| **需求→AC 映射** | 每个需求是否有对应的验收标准，映射是否完整 |
+| **场景覆盖** | 正常流、异常流、边界场景是否均已识别 |
+| **领域术语一致性** | 需求陈述中的术语是否与 CONTEXT.md 领域模型一致（交叉引用） |
+| **AC 精确度** | 验收标准是否具体、可度量、无歧义 |
+
+### Expert B (feasibility) — 需求模式焦点
+
+| 维度 | 检查内容 |
+|------|---------|
+| **AC 可测试性** | 每个验收标准是否可被自动化或手动测试验证 |
+| **用户画像清晰度** | 目标用户/角色是否明确定义，场景是否贴合真实使用 |
+| **范围边界清晰度** | 需求边界（in-scope vs out-of-scope）是否明确划定 |
+| **需求间依赖** | 需求之间是否存在隐含依赖或冲突 |
+| **隐含假设** | 是否存在未明确声明的假设（技术、业务、环境） |
+
+---
+
+## 共识标准
+
+| 条件 | 结果 |
+|------|------|
+| 2/2 APPROVED + 无 Critical gaps | ✅ verdict=APPROVED，进入设计文档生成 |
+| 2/2 APPROVED + 有 Minor gaps | ✅ verdict=APPROVED（记录 gaps 供参考） |
+| 1/2 APPROVED, 1/2 GAPS_FOUND | ❌ verdict=GAPS_FOUND，记录 gaps |
+| 0/2 APPROVED | ❌ verdict=GAPS_FOUND，记录 gaps |
+| 有 Critical requirement gaps | ❌ verdict=GAPS_FOUND |
+
+**共识要求**: 2/2 一致 APPROVED（100%）。轻量配置不降低共识标准。
+
+---
+
+## 循环控制（Loop Semantics）
+
+```
+Round 1: delphi-review --mode requirements
+    │
+    ├─→ APPROVED → 完成，进入设计文档生成
+    │
+    └─→ GAPS_FOUND
+          │
+          ├─→ gaps 记录到 requirements-reviewed.json
+          ├─→ 返回 sprint-flow → grill-with-docs 补充访谈
+          │
+          ▼
+Round 2: delphi-review --mode requirements（带 Round 1 gaps 上下文）
+    │
+    ├─→ APPROVED → 完成，进入设计文档生成
+    │
+    └─→ GAPS_FOUND
+          │
+          └─→ escalation_needed: true
+              → sprint-flow Phase 2 处理升级 UX（交用户决策）
+```
+
+**硬性限制**:
+- **最多 2 轮**（Round 1 + 可选 Round 2）
+- **禁止无界循环** — Round 2 后仍 GAPS_FOUND 必须升级
+- **Round 2 上下文**: 专家看到 Round 1 的 gaps 列表，评估是否已修复
+- **升级语义**: `escalation_needed: true` 写入 requirements-reviewed.json，sprint-flow 负责 UX
+
+---
+
+## 输出格式
+
+### 证据文件: `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json`
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "requirements",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED",
+  "timestamp": "2026-07-25T10:30:00Z",
+  "requirements_hash": "a1b2c3d4e5f6...（SHA-256 hex digest）",
+  "head_commit": "abc123def456789...",
+  "context_file_used": "CONTEXT.md",
+  "round": 1,
+  "expert_verdicts": [
+    { "role": "architecture", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 9 },
+    { "role": "feasibility", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 8 }
+  ],
+  "requirements_statement": "实现用户注册流程，支持邮箱验证和密码重置",
+  "gaps_found": [],
+  "rounds_used": 1,
+  "escalation_needed": false
+}
+```
+
+### GAPS_FOUND 示例
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "requirements",
+  "verdict": "GAPS_FOUND",
+  "timestamp": "2026-07-25T10:30:00Z",
+  "requirements_hash": "a1b2c3d4e5f6...",
+  "head_commit": "abc123def456789...",
+  "context_file_used": "CONTEXT.md",
+  "round": 1,
+  "expert_verdicts": [
+    { "role": "architecture", "verdict": "APPROVED", "confidence": 8 },
+    { "role": "feasibility", "verdict": "GAPS_FOUND", "confidence": 7 }
+  ],
+  "requirements_statement": "实现用户注册流程，支持邮箱验证和密码重置",
+  "gaps_found": [
+    "密码重置的过期时间未定义",
+    "邮箱验证失败的重试策略缺失",
+    "AC-003 不可测试：'系统应快速响应' 无量化指标"
+  ],
+  "rounds_used": 1,
+  "escalation_needed": false
+}
+```
+
+### 字段说明
+
+| 字段 | 类型 | 说明 |
+|------|------|------|
+| `mode` | string | 固定值 `"requirements"` |
+| `verdict` | string | `APPROVED` 或 `GAPS_FOUND` |
+| `timestamp` | string | 评审完成时间 (ISO 8601 UTC) |
+| `requirements_hash` | string | SHA-256 hex digest（防陈旧绑定，见下文） |
+| `head_commit` | string | 当前 `git rev-parse HEAD` |
+| `context_file_used` | string | 引用的 CONTEXT.md 路径 |
+| `round` | number | 当前轮次（1 或 2） |
+| `expert_verdicts` | array | 各专家裁决（2 项：architecture + feasibility） |
+| `requirements_statement` | string | 被评审需求的简短摘要 |
+| `gaps_found` | array | GAPS_FOUND 时的缺口列表（APPROVED 时为空数组） |
+| `rounds_used` | number | 实际使用的轮次数 |
+| `escalation_needed` | boolean | Round 2 后仍 GAPS_FOUND 时为 `true` |
+
+### 状态文件: `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json`
+
+APPROVED 时同步写入状态文件（与 design / code-walkthrough 模式一致）:
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "requirements",
+  "timestamp": "2026-07-25T10:30:00Z",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED",
+  "consensus_ratio": 1.0
+}
+```
+
+> 此文件供 `verify-consensus.sh` 校验。GAPS_FOUND 时**不写入**此文件（评审未完成）。
+
+---
+
+## Hash 绑定（防陈旧绑定 — §8.4）
+
+`requirements_hash` = SHA-256 of:
+
+```
+requirements_statement + CONTEXT.md content + ISO timestamp prefix (YYYY-MM-DD)
+```
+
+**计算规则**:
+1. 拼接: `requirements_statement` 字符串 + `CONTEXT.md` 文件完整内容（若存在）+ 当日日期前缀 `YYYY-MM-DD`
+2. 对拼接结果计算 SHA-256 hex digest
+3. 若 CONTEXT.md 不存在，仅拼接 `requirements_statement` + 日期前缀
+
+**目的**: 防止旧证据复用。`phase-transition 2 completed` 校验时：
+- 文件必须存在
+- `verdict` 必须为 `APPROVED`
+- `requirements_hash` 必须为非空字符串
+- 若 hash 与当前需求内容不匹配 → BLOCK（防陈旧绑定）
+
+**与 phase-transition.js 的集成**（v0.17.1 已实现）:
+
+```javascript
+// EVIDENCE_FILES[2] — 已存在于 phase-transition.js
+{
+  path: '.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json',
+  requiredFields: ['verdict', 'requirements_hash'],
+  blockingCheck: (data) => data.verdict === 'APPROVED',
+  blockingMessage: 'Requirements review verdict is not APPROVED',
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## 证据文件路径
+
+| 文件 | 路径 | 校验时机 | 校验方 |
+|------|------|----------|--------|
+| requirements-reviewed.json | `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/` | `phase-transition 2 completed` | phase-transition.js Layer 2 |
+| delphi-reviewed.json | `.sprint-state/` | verify-consensus.sh | verify-consensus.sh |
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+**只在 `--mode requirements` 时适用：**
+
+| ❌ Don't | ✅ Do | Why |
+|----------|------|-----|
+| 使用全部 3 个专家 | 仅使用 architecture + feasibility | 轻量配置（设计决策 §16.4 C3），technical 属设计阶段 |
+| 无界循环评审 | 最多 2 轮，之后升级 | 防止无限循环（设计 §5.3 step 3） |
+| 跳过 CONTEXT.md 交叉引用 | 始终交叉引用领域术语 | 需求应使用 CONTEXT.md 中的规范术语 |
+| 输出泛化批准 | 输出 hash 绑定的需求陈述 | 防陈旧绑定（§8.4，Round 1 设计反馈 #14） |
+| 接受 1/2 APPROVED | 要求 2/2 共识（100%） | 轻量配置仍需严格共识 |
+| Round 2 中复用 Round 1 gaps 作为新发现 | Round 2 专家获得 Round 1 gaps 上下文 | 迭代改进，避免重复劳动 |
+| 评审设计文档或代码 | 仅评审需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md | 设计/代码评审是 design / code-walkthrough 模式的职责 |
+| GAPS_FOUND 时写入 delphi-reviewed.json | 仅 APPROVED 时写入状态文件 | GAPS_FOUND 表示评审未完成 |
+| 在 lightweight sprint 中执行 R1 | `change_type == "修改已存在代码"` 时跳过 R1 | 需求维度合并入 R2 设计评审 |
+
+---
+
+## Security Notes
+
+- **只读评审**: requirements 模式不修改任何源文件，仅写入证据文件到 `.sprint-state/`
+- **Hash 完整性**: `requirements_hash` 使用 SHA-256，防止需求内容被篡改后复用旧证据
+- **Commit 绑定**: `head_commit` 记录评审时的 git HEAD，提供时间线追溯
+- **无外部 API 泄露**: 评审内容仅传递给配置的国产模型 provider，不经过第三方服务
+- **证据不可伪造**: phase-transition.js 程序化校验证据文件，LLM 无法绕过
+
+---
+
+## Triggers / Negative Triggers
+
+**触发（requirements 模式特有）**:
+- `/delphi-review --mode requirements`
+- "review the requirements"
+- "评审需求"
+- "requirements review"
+- "/requirements-review"
+
+**不触发**:
+- "review my requirements document"（教育性讨论，非执行评审）
+- "requirements template"（询问模板格式）
+- "how to write requirements"（教育性）
+- "check my requirements"（模糊，可能是 Casual 检查）
+
+---
+
+## Terminal State Checklist (requirements mode)
+
+**Pre-requisites (MANDATORY - BLOCK if missing):**
+- [ ] grill-with-docs 已完成（或 CONTEXT.md 快速路径）
+- [ ] 需求陈述可用（非空）
+- [ ] Expert A (architecture) 模型 API 可用
+- [ ] Expert B (feasibility) 模型 API 可用
+
+**CRITICAL - 共识验证 (requirements):**
+- [ ] 2/2 专家 APPROVED
+- [ ] 无 Critical requirement gaps 未解决
+- [ ] requirements_hash 已计算并写入
+
+**Final Requirements (requirements):**
+- [ ] `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json` 已写入
+- [ ] JSON 格式有效，包含所有必需字段
+- [ ] verdict 为 APPROVED 或 GAPS_FOUND
+- [ ] IF APPROVED: `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json` 已写入（mode=requirements）
+- [ ] IF GAPS_FOUND: gaps_found 数组非空，escalation_needed 正确设置
+- [ ] IF Round 2 后仍 GAPS_FOUND: escalation_needed = true
+
+**IF 任何 Pre-requisite 缺失:**
+- **CANNOT 完成评审**
+- **MUST BLOCK 并通知用户**
+
+**IF GAPS_FOUND (Round 1):**
+- 返回 sprint-flow → grill-with-docs 补充
+- 重新执行 requirements 评审（Round 2）
+
+**IF GAPS_FOUND (Round 2):**
+- **escalation_needed = true**
+- **MUST 升级给用户决策**
+- **CANNOT 自动继续**
+
+**⭐ APPROVED 后必做 (requirements mode)：写入证据文件**
+
+IF mode == `requirements` AND 最终裁决是 APPROVED，评审完成后必须：
+
+1. 写入 `.sprint-state/phase-outputs/requirements-reviewed.json`
+2. 写入 `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json`（状态文件）
+3. 验证 JSON 格式有效
+4. 验证 requirements_hash 非空
+5. 验证 head_commit 匹配当前 HEAD

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/delphi-review/references/round-templates.md

@@ -65,3 +65,70 @@
 ### Critical Issues 修复 | ### Major Concerns 处理 | ### Minor Concerns 说明
 ### 请求重新评审
 ```
+
+---
+
+## Requirements Mode: Round 1（匿名独立需求评审）
+
+### 执行方式
+
+2 位专家（architecture + feasibility）独立收到：需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md + grill session 摘要 + "独立评审需求完整性，不知道其他专家意见"。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Requirements Review - Expert [A(architecture)/B(feasibility)]
+
+### 需求摘要
+[被评审需求的简短概括]
+
+### 评审焦点
+- 需求完整性: [评估]
+- 需求→AC 映射: [评估]
+- 场景覆盖: [评估]
+- AC 可测试性: [评估]
+- 用户画像清晰度: [评估]
+- 范围边界: [评估]
+
+### 缺口清单 (Gaps)
+#### Critical Gaps (必须解决才能进入设计)
+1. [缺口描述] - 影响: [...] - 补充建议: [...]
+#### Minor Gaps (建议补充但不阻塞)
+1. [...]
+
+### 裁决: [APPROVED / GAPS_FOUND]
+### 置信度: [X/10]
+### 关键理由
+1. [...]
+```
+
+## Requirements Mode: Round 2（带上下文的补充评审，如需要）
+
+### 触发条件
+
+Round 1 裁决为 GAPS_FOUND，grill-with-docs 补充访谈后重新评审。
+
+### 执行方式
+
+2 位专家收到：更新后的需求陈述 + CONTEXT.md + **Round 1 gaps 列表** + "评估 Round 1 缺口是否已修复，是否有新缺口"。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Requirements Review Round 2 - Expert [A(architecture)/B(feasibility)]
+
+### Round 1 缺口修复验证
+| Round 1 Gap | 状态 | 说明 |
+|-------------|------|------|
+| [gap 描述] | ✅ 已修复 / ❌ 仍存在 | [验证说明] |
+
+### 新发现缺口（如有）
+1. [新缺口描述]
+
+### 裁决: [APPROVED / GAPS_FOUND]
+### 置信度: [X/10]
+### 立场变化说明
+[与 Round 1 相比的立场变化]
+```
+
+> ⚠️ Round 2 后仍 GAPS_FOUND → `escalation_needed: true`，升级给用户决策。禁止 Round 3。

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/domain-modeling/ADR-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# ADR Format
+
+## Filename convention
+
+`docs/adr/{NNNN}-{kebab-case-title}.md`
+
+Where `{NNNN}` is a zero-padded incrementing number (e.g., `0001`, `0002`).
+
+## Structure
+
+```md
+# {NNNN}. {Title}
+
+## Status
+
+Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXXX
+
+## Context
+
+{The issue(s) or situation(s) motivating this decision. What forces are at play? What is the problem?}
+
+## Decision
+
+{The decision made. Stated in full sentences, in the present tense. What did we decide to do?}
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+- {Benefit 1}
+- {Benefit 2}
+
+### Negative
+- {Trade-off 1}
+- {Trade-off 2}
+
+### Neutral
+- {Neutral observation 1}
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### {Alternative 1 title}
+{Brief description and why it was rejected.}
+
+### {Alternative 2 title}
+{Brief description and why it was rejected.}
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Write for future readers, not present participants.** Future readers won't have the conversation context.
+- **Be honest about trade-offs.** Every decision has costs. Name them.
+- **One decision per ADR.** If you're writing "we decided X AND Y", split them.
+- **Keep the decision short.** 1-3 sentences. The context section is where the complexity lives.
+- **Superseded decisions are not deleted.** When a decision is overturned, create a new ADR that supersedes it. Update the old one's status to "Superseded by ADR-XXXX". This preserves history.
+- **Don't document trivial choices.** If the answer is obvious or easily reversible, skip the ADR.
+
+## When NOT to write an ADR
+
+- The decision is easily reversible.
+- The decision is a personal preference with no team impact.
+- The decision is well-documented elsewhere (e.g., in the project's CONTRIBUTING.md).
+- The decision follows an obvious path with no real alternatives.
+
+When in doubt, skip it. An ADR that shouldn't exist creates more noise than value.

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/domain-modeling/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# CONTEXT.md Format
+
+## Structure
+
+```md
+# {Context Name}
+
+{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}
+
+## Language
+
+**Order**:
+{A one or two sentence description of the term}
+_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction
+
+**Invoice**:
+A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.
+_Avoid_: Bill, payment request
+
+**Customer**:
+A person or organization that places orders.
+_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others under `_Avoid_`.
+- **Keep definitions tight.** One or two sentences max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
+- **Only include terms specific to this project's context.** General programming concepts (timeouts, error types, utility patterns) don't belong even if the project uses them extensively. Before adding a term, ask: is this a concept unique to this context, or a general programming concept? Only the former belongs.
+- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine.
+
+## Single vs multi-context repos
+
+**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root.
+
+**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other:
+
+```md
+# Context Map
+
+## Contexts
+
+- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders
+- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments
+- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping
+
+## Relationships
+
+- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking
+- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices
+- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money`
+```
+
+The skill infers which structure applies:
+
+- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts
+- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context
+- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved
+
+When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/domain-modeling/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+name: domain-modeling
+description: Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when the user wants to pin down domain terminology or a ubiquitous language, record an architectural decision, or when another skill needs to maintain the domain model.
+---
+
+# 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* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill — that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.)
+
+## File structure
+
+Most repos have a single context:
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT.md
+├── docs/
+│   └── adr/
+│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
+│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
+└── src/
+```
+
+If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
+├── docs/
+│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
+├── src/
+│   ├── ordering/
+│   │   ├── CONTEXT.md
+│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
+│   └── billing/
+│       ├── CONTEXT.md
+│       └── docs/adr/
+```
+
+Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
+
+## During the session
+
+### Challenge against the glossary
+
+When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
+
+### Sharpen fuzzy language
+
+When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
+
+### Discuss concrete scenarios
+
+When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.
+
+### Cross-reference with code
+
+When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
+
+### Update CONTEXT.md inline
+
+When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
+
+`CONTEXT.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.
+
+### Offer ADRs sparingly
+
+Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
+
+1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
+2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
+3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
+
+If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+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
+---
+
+Run a `/grilling` session, using the `/domain-modeling` skill.

package/plugins/claude-code/skills/grilling/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+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 me relentlessly about every aspect of this until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the decision tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
+
+Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing. Asking multiple questions at once is bewildering.
+
+If a *fact* can be found by exploring the environment (filesystem, tools, etc.), look it up rather than asking me. The *decisions*, though, are mine — put each one to me and wait for my answer.
+
+Do not act on it until I confirm we have reached a shared understanding.