@fro.bot/systematic 2.3.2 → 2.4.0

package/skills/agent-native-architecture/references/agent-execution-patterns.md

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ extension ToolResult {
     }
 
     static func complete(_ summary: String) -> ToolResult {
-        // task done, stop the loop
+        // Task done, stop the loop
         ToolResult(success: true, output: summary, shouldContinue: false)
     }
 }
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ Progress: 3/5 tasks complete (60%)
 - Resume continues from where it left off, not from beginning
 
 **Agent fails on one task:**
-- task marked `.failed` with error in notes
+- Task marked `.failed` with error in notes
 - Other tasks may continue (agent decides)
 - Orchestrator doesn't automatically abort entire session
 
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ struct AgentCheckpoint: Codable {
     let agentType: String
     let messages: [Message]          // Full conversation history
     let iterationCount: Int
-    let tasks: [AgentTask]           // task state
+    let tasks: [AgentTask]           // Task state
     let customState: [String: Any]   // Agent-specific state
     let timestamp: Date
 

package/skills/agent-native-architecture/references/agent-native-testing.md

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ describe('Agent Capability Tests', () => {
 });
 ```
 
-### The "Write to Location" Test
+### The "write to Location" Test
 
 A key litmus test: can the agent create content in specific app locations?
 

package/skills/agent-native-architecture/references/mobile-patterns.md

@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ class AgentSession: ObservableObject {
 }
 ```
 
-### Background Task Extension (iOS)
+### Background task Extension(iOS)
 
 Request extra time when backgrounded during critical operations:
 

package/skills/andrew-kane-gem-writer/SKILL.md

@@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ end
 ## Reference Files
 
 For deeper patterns, see:
-- **[references/module-organization.md](references/module-organization.md)** - Directory layouts, method decomposition
-- **[references/rails-integration.md](references/rails-integration.md)** - Railtie, Engine, on_load patterns
-- **[references/database-adapters.md](references/database-adapters.md)** - Multi-database support patterns
-- **[references/testing-patterns.md](references/testing-patterns.md)** - Multi-version testing, CI setup
-- **[references/resources.md](references/resources.md)** - Links to Kane's repos and articles
+- `references/module-organization.md` - Directory layouts, method decomposition
+- `references/rails-integration.md` - Railtie, Engine, on_load patterns
+- `references/database-adapters.md` - Multi-database support patterns
+- `references/testing-patterns.md` - Multi-version testing, CI setup
+- `references/resources.md` - Links to Kane's repos and articles

package/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: ce:brainstorm
-description: Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before writing a right-sized requirements document and planning implementation. Use for feature ideas, problem framing, when the user says 'let's brainstorm', or when they want to think through options before deciding what to build. Also use when a user describes a vague or ambitious feature request, asks 'what should we build', 'help me think through X', presents a problem with multiple valid solutions, or seems unsure about scope or direction — even if they don't explicitly ask to brainstorm.
-argument-hint: '[feature idea or problem to explore]'
+description: 'Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before writing a right-sized requirements document and planning implementation. Use for feature ideas, problem framing, when the user says ''let''s brainstorm'', or when they want to think through options before deciding what to build. Also use when a user describes a vague or ambitious feature request, asks ''what should we build'', ''help me think through X'', presents a problem with multiple valid solutions, or seems unsure about scope or direction — even if they don''t explicitly ask to brainstorm.'
+argument-hint: "[feature idea or problem to explore]"
 ---
 
 # Brainstorm a Feature or Improvement
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ The durable output of this workflow is a **requirements document**. In other wor
 
 This skill does not implement code. It explores, clarifies, and documents decisions for later planning or execution.
 
+**IMPORTANT: All file references in generated documents must use repo-relative paths (e.g., `src/models/user.rb`), never absolute paths. Absolute paths break portability across machines, worktrees, and teammates.**
+
 ## Core Principles
 
 1. **Assess scope first** - Match the amount of ceremony to the size and ambiguity of the work.
@@ -33,6 +35,7 @@ This skill does not implement code. It explores, clarifies, and documents decisi
 ## Output Guidance
 
 - **Keep outputs concise** - Prefer short sections, brief bullets, and only enough detail to support the next decision.
+- **Use repo-relative paths** - When referencing files, use paths relative to the repo root (e.g., `src/models/user.rb`), never absolute paths. Absolute paths make documents non-portable across machines and teammates.
 
 ## Feature Description
 
@@ -53,6 +56,20 @@ If the user references an existing brainstorm topic or document, or there is an
 - Confirm with the user before resuming: "Found an existing requirements doc for [topic]. Should I continue from this, or start fresh?"
 - If resuming, summarize the current state briefly, continue from its existing decisions and outstanding questions, and update the existing document instead of creating a duplicate
 
+#### 0.1b Classify Task Domain
+
+Before proceeding to Phase 0.2, classify whether this is a software task. The key question is: **does the task involve building, modifying, or architecting software?** -- not whether the task *mentions* software topics.
+
+**Software** (continue to Phase 0.2) -- the task references code, repositories, APIs, databases, or asks to build/modify/debug/deploy software.
+
+**Non-software brainstorming** (route to universal brainstorming) -- BOTH conditions must be true:
+- None of the software signals above are present
+- The task describes something the user wants to explore, decide, or think through in a non-software domain
+
+**Neither** (respond directly, skip all brainstorming phases) -- the input is a quick-help request, error message, factual question, or single-step task that doesn't need a brainstorm.
+
+**If non-software brainstorming is detected:** Read `references/universal-brainstorming.md` and use those facilitation principles to brainstorm with the user naturally. Do not follow the software brainstorming phases below.
+
 #### 0.2 Assess Whether Brainstorming Is Needed
 
 **Clear requirements indicators:**
@@ -87,7 +104,17 @@ Scan the repo before substantive brainstorming. Match depth to scope:
 
 *Topic Scan* — Search for relevant terms. Read the most relevant existing artifact if one exists (brainstorm, plan, spec, skill, feature doc). Skim adjacent examples covering similar behavior.
 
-If nothing obvious appears after a short scan, say so and continue. Do not drift into technical planning — avoid inspecting tests, migrations, deployment, or low-level architecture unless the brainstorm is itself about a technical decision.
+If nothing obvious appears after a short scan, say so and continue. Two rules govern technical depth during the scan:
+
+1. **Verify before claiming** — When the brainstorm touches checkable infrastructure (database tables, routes, config files, dependencies, model definitions), read the relevant source files to confirm what actually exists. Any claim that something is absent — a missing table, an endpoint that doesn't exist, a dependency not in the Gemfile, a config option with no current support — must be verified against the codebase first; if not verified, label it as an unverified assumption. This applies to every brainstorm regardless of topic.
+
+2. **Defer design decisions to planning** — Implementation details like schemas, migration strategies, endpoint structure, or deployment topology belong in planning, not here — unless the brainstorm is itself about a technical or architectural decision, in which case those details are the subject of the brainstorm and should be explored.
+
+**Slack context** (opt-in, Standard and Deep only) — never auto-dispatch. Route by condition:
+
+- **Tools available + user asked**: Dispatch `systematic:research:slack-researcher` with a brief summary of the brainstorm topic alongside Phase 1.1 work. Incorporate findings into constraint and context awareness.
+- **Tools available + user didn't ask**: Note in output: "Slack tools detected. Ask me to search Slack for organizational context at any point, or include it in your next prompt."
+- **No tools + user asked**: Note in output: "Slack context was requested but no Slack tools are available. Install and authenticate the Slack plugin to enable organizational context search."
 
 #### 1.2 Product Pressure Test
 
@@ -113,13 +140,10 @@ Before generating approaches, challenge the request to catch misframing. Match d
 
 #### 1.3 Collaborative Dialogue
 
-Use the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Rules). Otherwise, present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.
+Follow the Interaction Rules above. Use the platform's blocking question tool when available.
 
 **Guidelines:**
-- Ask questions **one at a time**
-- Prefer multiple choice when natural options exist
-- Prefer **single-select** when choosing one direction, one priority, or one next step
-- Use **multi-select** only for compatible sets that can all coexist; if prioritization matters, ask which selected item is primary
+- Ask what the user is already thinking before offering your own ideas. This surfaces hidden context and prevents fixation on AI-generated framings.
 - Start broad (problem, users, value) then narrow (constraints, exclusions, edge cases)
 - Clarify the problem frame, validate assumptions, and ask about success criteria
 - Make requirements concrete enough that planning will not need to invent behavior
@@ -133,6 +157,10 @@ Use the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Rules)
 
 If multiple plausible directions remain, propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation. Otherwise state the recommended direction directly.
 
+Use at least one non-obvious angle — inversion (what if we did the opposite?), constraint removal (what if X weren't a limitation?), or analogy from how another domain solves this. The first approaches that come to mind are usually variations on the same axis.
+
+Present approaches first, then evaluate. Let the user see all options before hearing which one is recommended — leading with a recommendation before the user has seen alternatives anchors the conversation prematurely.
+
 When useful, include one deliberately higher-upside alternative:
 - Identify what adjacent addition or reframing would most increase usefulness, compounding value, or durability without disproportionate carrying cost. Present it as a challenger option alongside the baseline, not as the default. Omit it when the work is already obviously over-scoped or the baseline request is clearly the right move.
 
@@ -142,7 +170,7 @@ For each approach, provide:
 - Key risks or unknowns
 - When it's best suited
 
-Lead with your recommendation and explain why. Prefer simpler solutions when added complexity creates real carrying cost, but do not reject low-cost, high-value polish just because it is not strictly necessary.
+After presenting all approaches, state your recommendation and explain why. Prefer simpler solutions when added complexity creates real carrying cost, but do not reject low-cost, high-value polish just because it is not strictly necessary.
 
 If one approach is clearly best and alternatives are not meaningful, skip the menu and state the recommendation directly.
 
@@ -153,184 +181,18 @@ If relevant, call out whether the choice is:
 
 ### Phase 3: Capture the Requirements
 
-Write or update a requirements document only when the conversation produced durable decisions worth preserving.
-
-This document should behave like a lightweight PRD without PRD ceremony. Include what planning needs to execute well, and skip sections that add no value for the scope.
-
-The requirements document is for product definition and scope control. Do **not** include implementation details such as libraries, schemas, endpoints, file layouts, or code structure unless the brainstorm is inherently technical and those details are themselves the subject of the decision.
-
-**Required content for non-trivial work:**
-- Problem frame
-- Concrete requirements or intended behavior with stable IDs
-- Scope boundaries
-- Success criteria
-
-**Include when materially useful:**
-- Key decisions and rationale
-- Dependencies or assumptions
-- Outstanding questions
-- Alternatives considered
-- High-level technical direction only when the work is inherently technical and the direction is part of the product/architecture decision
-
-**Document structure:** Use this template and omit clearly inapplicable optional sections:
-
-```markdown
----
-date: YYYY-MM-DD
-topic: <kebab-case-topic>
----
-
-# <Topic Title>
-
-## Problem Frame
-[Who is affected, what is changing, and why it matters]
-
-## Requirements
-- R1. [Concrete user-facing behavior or requirement]
-- R2. [Concrete user-facing behavior or requirement]
-
-## Success Criteria
-- [How we will know this solved the right problem]
-
-## Scope Boundaries
-- [Deliberate non-goal or exclusion]
-
-## Key Decisions
-- [Decision]: [Rationale]
-
-## Dependencies / Assumptions
-- [Only include if material]
-
-## Outstanding Questions
-
-### Resolve Before Planning
-- [Affects R1][User decision] [Question that must be answered before planning can proceed]
-
-### Deferred to Planning
-- [Affects R2][Technical] [Question that should be answered during planning or codebase exploration]
-- [Affects R2][Needs research] [Question that likely requires research during planning]
-
-## Next Steps
-[If `Resolve Before Planning` is empty: `→ /ce:plan` for structured implementation planning]
-[If `Resolve Before Planning` is not empty: `→ Resume /ce:brainstorm` to resolve blocking questions before planning]
-```
-
-For **Standard** and **Deep** brainstorms, a requirements document is usually warranted.
+Write or update a requirements document only when the conversation produced durable decisions worth preserving. Read `references/requirements-capture.md` for the document template, formatting rules, visual aid guidance, and completeness checks.
 
 For **Lightweight** brainstorms, keep the document compact. Skip document creation when the user only needs brief alignment and no durable decisions need to be preserved.
 
-For very small requirements docs with only 1-3 simple requirements, plain bullet requirements are acceptable. For **Standard** and **Deep** requirements docs, use stable IDs like `R1`, `R2`, `R3` so planning and later review can refer to them unambiguously.
-
-When the work is simple, combine sections rather than padding them. A short requirements document is better than a bloated one.
+### Phase 3.5: Document Review
 
-Before finalizing, check:
-- What would `ce:plan` still have to invent if this brainstorm ended now?
-- Do any requirements depend on something claimed to be out of scope?
-- Are any unresolved items actually product decisions rather than planning questions?
-- Did implementation details leak in when they shouldn't have?
-- Is there a low-cost change that would make this materially more useful?
+When a requirements document was created or updated, run the `document-review` skill on it before presenting handoff options. Pass the document path as the argument.
 
-If planning would need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria, the brainstorm is not complete yet.
+If document-review returns findings that were auto-applied, note them briefly when presenting handoff options. If residual P0/P1 findings were surfaced, mention them so the user can decide whether to address them before proceeding.
 
-Ensure `docs/brainstorms/` directory exists before writing.
-
-If a document contains outstanding questions:
-- Use `Resolve Before Planning` only for questions that truly block planning
-- If `Resolve Before Planning` is non-empty, keep working those questions during the brainstorm by default
-- If the user explicitly wants to proceed anyway, convert each remaining item into an explicit decision, assumption, or `Deferred to Planning` question before proceeding
-- Do not force resolution of technical questions during brainstorming just to remove uncertainty
-- Put technical questions, or questions that require validation or research, under `Deferred to Planning` when they are better answered there
-- Use tags like `[Needs research]` when the planner should likely investigate the question rather than answer it from repo context alone
-- Carry deferred questions forward explicitly rather than treating them as a failure to finish the requirements doc
+When document-review returns "Review complete", proceed to Phase 4.
 
 ### Phase 4: Handoff
 
-#### 4.1 Present Next-Step Options
-
-Present next steps using the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Rules). Otherwise present numbered options in chat and end the turn.
-
-If `Resolve Before Planning` contains any items:
-- Ask the blocking questions now, one at a time, by default
-- If the user explicitly wants to proceed anyway, first convert each remaining item into an explicit decision, assumption, or `Deferred to Planning` question
-- If the user chooses to pause instead, present the handoff as paused or blocked rather than complete
-- Do not offer `Proceed to planning` or `Proceed directly to work` while `Resolve Before Planning` remains non-empty
-
-**Question when no blocking questions remain:** "Brainstorm complete. What would you like to do next?"
-
-**Question when blocking questions remain and user wants to pause:** "Brainstorm paused. Planning is blocked until the remaining questions are resolved. What would you like to do next?"
-
-Present only the options that apply:
-- **Proceed to planning (Recommended)** - Run `/ce:plan` for structured implementation planning
-- **Proceed directly to work** - Only offer this when scope is lightweight, success criteria are clear, scope boundaries are clear, and no meaningful technical or research questions remain
-- **Review and refine** - Offer this only when a requirements document exists and can be improved through structured review
-- **Ask more questions** - Continue clarifying scope, preferences, or edge cases
-- **Share to Proof** - Offer this only when a requirements document exists
-- **Done for now** - Return later
-
-If the direct-to-work gate is not satisfied, omit that option entirely.
-
-#### 4.2 Handle the Selected Option
-
-**If user selects "Proceed to planning (Recommended)":**
-
-Immediately run `/ce:plan` in the current session. Pass the requirements document path when one exists; otherwise pass a concise summary of the finalized brainstorm decisions. Do not print the closing summary first.
-
-**If user selects "Proceed directly to work":**
-
-Immediately run `/ce:work` in the current session using the finalized brainstorm output as context. If a compact requirements document exists, pass its path. Do not print the closing summary first.
-
-**If user selects "Share to Proof":**
-
-```bash
-CONTENT=$(cat docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md)
-TITLE="Requirements: <topic title>"
-RESPONSE=$(curl -s -X POST https://www.proofeditor.ai/share/markdown \
-  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-  -d "$(jq -n --arg title "$TITLE" --arg markdown "$CONTENT" --arg by "ai:compound" '{title: $title, markdown: $markdown, by: $by}')")
-PROOF_URL=$(echo "$RESPONSE" | jq -r '.tokenUrl')
-```
-
-Display the URL prominently: `View & collaborate in Proof: <PROOF_URL>`
-
-If the curl fails, skip silently. Then return to the Phase 4 options.
-
-**If user selects "Ask more questions":** Return to Phase 1.3 (Collaborative Dialogue) and continue asking the user questions one at a time to further refine the design. Probe deeper into edge cases, constraints, preferences, or areas not yet explored. Continue until the user is satisfied, then return to Phase 4. Do not show the closing summary yet.
-
-**If user selects "Review and refine":**
-
-Load the `document-review` skill and apply it to the requirements document.
-
-When document-review returns "Review complete", return to the normal Phase 4 options and present only the options that still apply. Do not show the closing summary yet.
-
-#### 4.3 Closing Summary
-
-Use the closing summary only when this run of the workflow is ending or handing off, not when returning to the Phase 4 options.
-
-When complete and ready for planning, display:
-
-```text
-Brainstorm complete!
-
-Requirements doc: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md  # if one was created
-
-Key decisions:
-- [Decision 1]
-- [Decision 2]
-
-Recommended next step: `/ce:plan`
-```
-
-If the user pauses with `Resolve Before Planning` still populated, display:
-
-```text
-Brainstorm paused.
-
-Requirements doc: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md  # if one was created
-
-Planning is blocked by:
-- [Blocking question 1]
-- [Blocking question 2]
-
-Resume with `/ce:brainstorm` when ready to resolve these before planning.
-```
-
+Present next-step options and execute the user's selection. Read `references/handoff.md` for the option logic, dispatch instructions, and closing summary format.