@chinhae/atw-cli 0.1.0

package/dist/templates/common/bundled-skills/atw-tickets/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: atw-tickets
+description: "将计划、规格说明或当前对话拆分为一组“追踪子工单”，每个子工单都声明其阻塞边，并发布到已配置的跟踪系统中——这些边可以是本地每个子工单对应文件中的文本，也可以是真实跟踪系统上的原生阻塞链接。"
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Oxyteam 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 call the Skill tool for `atw-init-repo`, which writes both.
+
+## 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.
+
+<vertical-slice-rules>
+
+- 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
+
+</vertical-slice-rules>
+
+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 this repo uses — the tickets are the same either way, only the shape of the blocking edges changes:
+
+- **File-based trackers** → consult the tracker doc's "When a skill says publish to the issue tracker" section for the directory and naming convention; write one file per ticket, 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. **If the tracker doc defines extra ticket fields, add them on top of the template.**
+- **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 / sub-issue relationship where it has one; otherwise set each ticket's "Blocked by" to the blocking issues. 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.
+
+<local-ticket-template>
+
+# <NN> — <Ticket title>
+
+**What to build:** the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective — not a layer-by-layer implementation list.
+
+**Impl:** ready
+
+**Blocked by:** the numbers/titles of the tickets that gate this one, or "None — can start immediately".
+
+- [ ] Acceptance criterion 1
+- [ ] Acceptance criterion 2
+
+</local-ticket-template>
+
+<issue-template>
+
+## 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".
+
+</issue-template>
+
+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.

package/dist/templates/common/bundled-skills/atw-tickets/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Oxyteam Tickets"
+  short_description: "将计划拆分为“追踪子弹”工单"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/dist/templates/common/bundled-skills/atw-triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+# Writing Agent Briefs
+
+An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue or PR when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
+
+The brief states **what the agent should do**, which stretches to both surfaces: for an issue, that's building the change from nothing; for a PR, it's what's left to do *to the existing diff* — finish it, close gaps, address review points. Same principles either way; the PR example below shows the difference.
+
+## 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 `/atw-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/`)
+```
+
+### Good agent brief (PR)
+
+For a PR, "Current behavior" describes the state of the diff, and the brief asks the agent to finish or fix it rather than build from scratch.
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** enhancement
+**Summary:** Finish the contributor's `--json` output flag for `triage list`
+
+**Current behavior:**
+The PR adds a `--json` flag that serializes the issue list to JSON. The happy
+path works and the diff matches the project's command structure. Two gaps
+remain: errors are still printed as human text (not JSON), and the new flag has
+no test coverage.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+With `--json`, all output — including errors — is well-formed JSON on stdout,
+and the command's exit codes are unchanged. The existing human-readable output
+is untouched when the flag is absent.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- The command's error path should emit `{ "error": string }` under `--json`
+  instead of the plain-text error
+- Reuse the existing serializer the PR already added; don't introduce a second
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] `triage list --json` emits valid JSON for both success and error cases
+- [ ] Exit codes match the non-JSON command
+- [ ] A test covers the `--json` success output and one error case
+- [ ] Default (non-JSON) output is byte-for-byte unchanged
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Adding `--json` to any other command
+- Changing the JSON shape of the success payload the PR already defined
+```
+
+### 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

package/dist/templates/common/bundled-skills/atw-triage/OUT-OF-SCOPE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Out-of-Scope Knowledge Base
+
+The `.out-of-scope/` directory in a repo stores persistent records of rejected feature requests. It serves two purposes:
+
+1. **Institutional memory** — why a feature was rejected, so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed
+2. **Deduplication** — when a new issue comes in that matches a prior rejection, the skill can surface the previous decision instead of re-litigating it
+
+## Directory structure
+
+```
+.out-of-scope/
+├── dark-mode.md
+├── plugin-system.md
+└── graphql-api.md
+```
+
+One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thing are grouped under one file.
+
+## File format
+
+The file should be written in a relaxed, readable style — more like a short design document than a database entry. Use paragraphs, code samples, and examples to make the reasoning clear and useful to someone encountering it for the first time.
+
+```markdown
+# Dark Mode
+
+This project does not support dark mode or user-facing theming.
+
+## Why this is out of scope
+
+The rendering pipeline assumes a single color palette defined in
+`ThemeConfig`. Supporting multiple themes would require:
+
+- A theme context provider wrapping the entire component tree
+- Per-component theme-aware style resolution
+- A persistence layer for user theme preferences
+
+This is a significant architectural change that doesn't align with the
+project's focus on content authoring. Theming is a concern for downstream
+consumers who embed or redistribute the output.
+
+```ts
+// The current ThemeConfig interface is not designed for runtime switching:
+interface ThemeConfig {
+  colors: ColorPalette; // single palette, resolved at build time
+  fonts: FontStack;
+}
+```
+
+## Prior requests
+
+- #42 — "Add dark mode support"
+- #87 — "Night theme for accessibility"
+- #134 — "Dark theme option"
+```
+
+### Naming the file
+
+Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugin-system.md`, `graphql-api.md`. The name should be recognizable enough that someone browsing the directory understands what was rejected without opening the file.
+
+### Writing the reason
+
+The reason should be substantive — not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
+
+- Project scope or philosophy ("This project focuses on X; theming is a downstream concern")
+- Technical constraints ("Supporting this would require Y, which conflicts with our Z architecture")
+- Strategic decisions ("We chose to use A instead of B because...")
+
+The reason should be durable. Avoid referencing temporary circumstances ("we're too busy right now") — those aren't real rejections, they're deferrals.
+
+## When to check `.out-of-scope/`
+
+During triage (Step 1: Gather context), read all files in `.out-of-scope/`. When evaluating a new issue:
+
+- Check if the request matches an existing out-of-scope concept
+- Matching is by concept similarity, not keyword — "night theme" matches `dark-mode.md`
+- If there's a match, surface it to the maintainer: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/dark-mode.md` — we rejected this before because [reason]. Do you still feel the same way?"
+
+The maintainer may:
+
+- **Confirm** — the new issue gets added to the existing file's "Prior requests" list, then closed
+- **Reconsider** — the out-of-scope file gets deleted or updated, and the issue proceeds through normal triage
+- **Disagree** — the issues are related but distinct, proceed with normal triage
+
+## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
+
+Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is *rejected* as `wontfix`. This applies to enhancement PRs exactly as it does to issues — a rejected PR is recorded here so the same request doesn't return as fresh code.
+
+Do **not** write here when something is closed as `wontfix` because it's **already implemented**. That's a built feature, not a rejected one; recording it would poison the dedup checks with false rejections. Instead, the closing comment points to where the feature already lives.
+
+The flow:
+
+1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
+2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
+3. If yes: append the new issue to the "Prior requests" list
+4. If no: create a new file with the concept name, decision, reason, and first prior request
+5. Post a comment on the issue explaining the decision and mentioning the `.out-of-scope/` file
+6. Close the issue with the `wontfix` label
+
+## Updating or removing out-of-scope files
+
+If the maintainer changes their mind about a previously rejected concept:
+
+- Delete the `.out-of-scope/` file
+- The skill does not need to reopen old issues — they're historical records
+- The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage

package/dist/templates/common/bundled-skills/atw-triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+name: atw-triage
+description: "通过由分流角色组成的状态机处理问题和外部PR——进行分类、核实、必要时深入追问，并撰写供代理人员使用的简报。"
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Oxyteam Triage
+
+Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.
+
+If this repo treats external pull requests as a request surface (see the issue-tracker config), triage covers them too: **a PR is an issue with attached code** — same roles, same states, same machine, with a few deltas marked "for a PR" below. Resolve a bare `#42` to an issue or PR per the tracker config.
+
+Every comment or issue posted to the issue tracker during triage **must** start with this disclaimer:
+
+```
+> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
+```
+
+## Reference docs
+
+- [AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md) — how to write durable agent briefs
+- [OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md) — how the `.out-of-scope/` knowledge base works
+
+## Roles
+
+Two **category** roles:
+
+- `bug` — something is broken
+- `enhancement` — new feature or improvement
+
+Five **state** roles:
+
+- `needs-triage` — maintainer needs to evaluate
+- `needs-info` — waiting on reporter for more information
+- `ready-for-agent` — fully specified, ready for an AFK agent
+- `ready-for-human` — needs human implementation
+- `wontfix` — will not be actioned
+
+For a PR, the same states read against the attached code: `ready-for-agent` means a brief is attached and an agent should take the next step on the diff; `ready-for-human` means it's ready for a human to merge.
+
+Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
+
+These are canonical role names — the actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to call the Skill tool for `atw-init-repo`, which writes `docs/agents/triage-labels.md`.
+
+State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time — flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
+
+## Invocation
+
+The maintainer invokes `/atw-triage` and describes what they want in natural language. Interpret the request and act. Examples:
+
+- "Show me anything that needs my attention"
+- "Let's look at #42" (issue or PR)
+- "Move #42 to ready-for-agent"
+- "What's ready for agents to pick up?"
+
+## Show what needs attention
+
+Query the issue tracker and present three buckets, oldest first:
+
+1. **Unlabeled** — never triaged.
+2. **`needs-triage`** — evaluation in progress.
+3. **`needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes** — needs re-evaluation.
+
+When PRs are in scope, include external PRs in these buckets and tag each line `[PR]` or `[issue]`. Discovery surfaces only *external* PRs (the tracker config defines who counts as external) — a collaborator's in-flight PR is not triage work. This filter is discovery-only; an explicitly named PR is always triaged regardless of author.
+
+Show counts and a one-line summary per item. Let the maintainer pick.
+
+## Triage a specific issue or PR
+
+1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue or PR (body, comments, labels, author, dates; for a PR, the diff too). Parse any prior triage notes so you don't re-ask resolved questions. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the area. Run two checks against the codebase: (a) **redundancy** — search for an existing implementation of the requested behavior by domain concept (not just the request's wording), and report where you looked. If found, it's an already-implemented `wontfix` (step 5). (b) **prior rejection** — read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any that resembles this request.
+
+2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the request — including whether it's already implemented. Wait for direction.
+
+3. **Verify the claim.** Before any interview, check that the claim holds up. For a bug, reproduce it from the reporter's steps. For a PR, confirm the diff does what it claims — check it out, run the relevant tests or commands. Report what happened: confirmed (with code path), failed, or insufficient detail (a strong `needs-info` signal). A confirmed verification makes a much stronger agent brief.
+
+4. **Interview (if needed).** If the request needs fleshing out, call the Skill tool twice, for "atw-interview" and "atw-domain-modeling" — interview a round of questions at a time, sharpening domain terms and updating `CONTEXT.md`/ADRs inline as decisions land.
+
+5. **Apply the outcome:**
+   - `ready-for-agent` — post an agent brief comment ([AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md)).
+   - `ready-for-human` — same structure as an agent brief, but note why it can't be delegated (judgment calls, external access, design decisions, manual testing).
+   - `needs-info` — post triage notes (template below).
+   - `wontfix` — close, with the comment depending on *why*:
+     - **Already implemented** — the change already exists in the codebase. Point to where it lives; do **not** write to `.out-of-scope/` (that KB is for *rejected* requests, not built ones).
+     - **Rejected (bug)** — polite explanation, then close.
+     - **Rejected (enhancement)** — write to `.out-of-scope/`, link to it from a comment, then close ([OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md)).
+   - `needs-triage` — apply the role. Optional comment if there's partial progress.
+
+## Quick state override
+
+If the maintainer says "move #42 to ready-for-agent", trust them and apply the role directly. Confirm what you're about to do (role changes, comment, close), then act. Skip the interview. If moving to `ready-for-agent` without an interview session, ask whether they want to write an agent brief.
+
+## Needs-info template
+
+```markdown
+## Triage Notes
+
+**What we've established so far:**
+
+- point 1
+- point 2
+
+**What we still need from you (@reporter):**
+
+- question 1
+- question 2
+```
+
+Capture everything resolved during the interview under "established so far" so the work isn't lost. Questions must be specific and actionable, not "please provide more info".
+
+## Resuming a previous session
+
+If prior triage notes exist on the issue or PR, read them, check whether the reporter has answered any outstanding questions, and present an updated picture before continuing. Don't re-ask resolved questions.

package/dist/templates/common/bundled-skills/atw-triage/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Oxyteam Triage"
+  short_description: "通过分诊角色处理问题"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/dist/templates/common/commands/continue.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Continue Current Task
+
+Resume work on the current task — pick up at the right phase/step in `.atw/workflow.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Load Current Context
+
+```bash
+{{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.atw/scripts/get_context.py
+```
+
+Confirms: current task, git state, recent commits.
+
+## Step 2: Load the Phase Index
+
+```bash
+{{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.atw/scripts/get_context.py --mode phase
+```
+
+Shows the Phase Index (Plan / Execute / Finish) with routing + skill mapping.
+
+## Step 3: Decide Where You Are
+
+`get_context.py` shows the active task's `status` field. The stage *is* the route — each of the six stages maps to one place in the workflow, so read `status` first and only look at artifacts where a row below asks you to. This command replaces the user needing to remember the ATW flow; it does not itself approve implementation.
+
+- `status=discover` → **1.1**. Work the open questions: `/atw-askme` (or `/atw-askme-with-docs` when the answer lives in project docs), `/atw-map` when the route is unclear, `/atw-prototype` for a design question, `/atw-research` for external unknowns. Advance with `task.py set-status <task> specify` once nothing you raised this session is still unanswered — that one is not a stop.
+- `status=specify` + no `prd.md` → **1.2** (`/atw-spec` turns the discover findings into `prd.md`)
+- `status=specify` + `prd.md` exists → **1.3**. Sub-agent-dispatch platforms curate `check.jsonl` (empty, or only a legacy `_example` placeholder row, counts as uncurated); inline platforms skip. Then **stop ②** — the user confirms `prd.md` before anything advances. After that: `task.py set-status <task> slice` if the work needs tickets, otherwise straight to **1.5**.
+- `status=slice` → **1.4** (`/atw-tickets`). Every ticket needs `**Impl:** ready` and a `**Blocked by:**` line. When they are written, run `task.py start <task>` (**1.5**).
+- `status=implement` → **2.1**. `tickets.py frontier` → `tickets.py claim NN` (never two at `doing`) → **stop ③**: the user runs `/atw-implement`; you may not invoke it or inline the work → relay both review reports verbatim → `tickets.py done NN`. Frontier empty → `task.py set-status <task> accept`.
+- `status=accept` → **3.1**. Read-only: file anything you notice instead of fixing it. Walk the `prd.md` acceptance criteria with evidence, confirm `tickets.py summary` is all `done` and `git status --porcelain` is clean, then **stop ④** and wait for the user to accept. Once accepted, `task.py archive <task>` (**3.2**).
+- `status=completed` on a task still under `.atw/tasks/` → **3.2, unfinished**. `task.py archive` writes `completed` first, then re-parents children, then moves the directory — and it does not roll back, so a task sitting here with this status means the archive was interrupted partway. Re-run `task.py archive <task>` to finish it: every step before the move is idempotent, so the re-run redoes them and completes the move.
+
+Phase rules (full detail in `.atw/workflow.md`):
+
+1. Run steps **in order** within a phase — `[required]` steps must not be skipped
+2. `[once]` steps are already done if the required output exists. `prd.md` is the one required Phase 1 artifact.
+3. Stages roll back: if implement exposes a spec defect, `task.py set-status <task> specify`, fix `prd.md`, then come back
+
+## Step 4: Load the Specific Step
+
+Once you know which step to resume at:
+
+```bash
+{{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.atw/scripts/get_context.py --mode phase --step <X.X> --platform {{CLI_FLAG}}
+```
+
+Follow the loaded instructions. After each `[required]` step completes, move to the next.
+
+---
+
+## Reference
+
+Full workflow and detailed phase steps live in `.atw/workflow.md`. This command is only an entry point — the canonical guidance is there.

package/dist/templates/common/commands/finish-work.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Finish Work
+
+Wrap up the current session: archive the active task (and any other completed-but-unarchived tasks the user wants to clean up) and record the session journal. Code commits are NOT done here — the `implement` stage commits as it goes, one ticket at a time, before the task ever reaches this command.
+
+## Step 1: Survey current state
+
+```bash
+{{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.atw/scripts/get_context.py --mode record
+```
+
+This prints:
+
+- **My active tasks** — review whether any besides the current one are actually done (code merged, AC met) and should be archived this round.
+- **Git status** — quick visual on what's dirty.
+- **Recent commits** — you'll need their hashes in Step 4 for `--commit`.
+
+If `--mode record` surfaces other completed tasks not tied to the current session, surface them to the user with a one-shot confirmation: "These N tasks look done — archive them too in this round? [y/N]". Default is no; the current active task is always archived in Step 3 regardless.
+
+## Step 2: Sanity check — classify dirty paths
+
+Run:
+
+```bash
+git status --porcelain
+```
+
+Filter out paths under `.atw/workspace/` and `.atw/tasks/` — those are managed by `add_session.py` and `task.py archive` auto-commits and will appear dirty as part of this skill's own work.
+
+For each remaining dirty path, decide whether it belongs to **the current task** or to **other parallel work** (e.g., another terminal window editing the same repo). Heuristics:
+
+- Paths referenced in the current task's `prd.md` / `implement.jsonl` / `check.jsonl` → current task
+- Paths in code areas matching the task's stated scope, or that you remember editing this session → current task
+- Paths in unrelated areas you have no recollection of touching this session → other parallel work
+
+Then route:
+
+- **Any remaining path looks like current-task work** — bail out. There is no wrap-up commit step: committing belongs to the `implement` stage, inside the per-ticket chain. Which exit applies depends on whether tickets are left:
+  > "Working tree has uncommitted code changes from this task: `<list>`."
+  >
+  > - `tickets.py frontier` still returns a ticket → "Run `task.py set-status <task> implement` and finish that ticket — its chain commits as it goes."
+  > - No tickets left (or the task never had any) → "These are loose end-of-task changes. Commit them yourself, then re-run `{{CMD_REF:finish-work}}`."
+
+  Do NOT run `git commit` here and do NOT drive the commit for the user. Loose uncommitted changes at wrap-up are an error state, not a workflow stage — the right handling is to stop and say so, not to invent a step for them.
+- **All remaining paths look unrelated** (other parallel-window work) — report them once and continue to Step 3:
+  > "FYI, dirty files outside this task's scope — leaving them for the other window: `<list>`."
+- **Genuinely unsure** — ask the user once: "Are `<list>` this task's work I forgot to commit, or another window's? (commit / ignore)" — then route per their answer.
+
+## Step 3: Archive task(s)
+
+```bash
+{{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.atw/scripts/task.py archive <task-name>
+```
+
+At minimum: the current active task (if any). Plus any extra tasks the user confirmed in Step 1. Each archive produces a `chore(task): archive ...` commit via the script's auto-commit.
+
+If there is no active task and the user did not confirm any cleanup archives, skip this step.
+
+## Step 4: Record session journal
+
+```bash
+{{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.atw/scripts/add_session.py \
+  --title "Session Title" \
+  --commit "hash1,hash2" \
+  --summary "Brief summary"
+```
+
+Use the work-commit hashes produced by the `implement` stage (visible in Step 1's `Recent commits` list, or via `git log --oneline`) for `--commit`. Do not include the archive commit hashes from Step 3. This produces a `chore: record journal` commit.
+
+Final git log order: `<work commits from the implement chain>` → `chore(task): archive ...` (one or more) → `chore: record journal`.