@heihei0299/matt-skills 1.3.0 → 1.3.2

package/.agents/skills/to-questionnaire/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+name: to-questionnaire
+description: Turn a decision you can't fully answer into a questionnaire for someone else to fill in.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+Turn something the user can't answer alone into a **questionnaire**: a Markdown document they hand to one person to fill in async, or fill out together over a meeting. The recipient holds knowledge the user lacks; the questionnaire pulls it out of them.
+
+**Grill the send, not the subject.** Interview the user only about the _send_, which they can always answer: who it goes to, and what they need back. The questions in the document then target the **gap** between what the recipient knows and what the user needs.
+
+
+1. **Who is it going to?** Ask, in one exchange, the recipient's role, expertise, and relationship to the user. This fixes the questionnaire's tone and how much context it must carry. Done when you know who the recipient is and what they know that the user doesn't.
+
+2. **What do you need back?** Ask, in one exchange, the specific decisions or facts the user can't resolve alone and needs from this person. Done when you have a concrete list of what the user must walk away able to do or decide.
+
+3. **Write the questionnaire.** Draft questions aimed at the gap from steps 1–2, following the Document structure below. Write it to `to-questionnaire-<slug>.md` in the current directory (slug from the topic) and report the path. Done when the file exists and every item the user named in step 2 is covered by a question.
+
+## Document structure
+
+Frame the document as a **discovery questionnaire**: the user lacks context, the recipient holds it. Order questions most-important-first, since async means you may only get one pass, and group them under `##` headings by theme once there are more than a handful. Write it using the template below.
+
+<questionnaire-template>
+
+# <Questionnaire title>
+
+**Purpose:** why this questionnaire exists and the decision riding on it.
+
+**From:** <the user>, **To:** <the recipient>, **How your answers will be used:** <where they go>
+
+## Context
+
+One paragraph orienting a recipient who wasn't in the user's head. Enough to answer well, not a page.
+
+## How to answer
+
+Deadline and rough effort. Partial answers and "I don't know" are useful: flag anything you're unsure of rather than skipping it.
+
+## <Theme heading>
+
+One `##` section per theme. Under each, its questions, most-important-first. Every question is one idea, never compound, with an answer stub directly beneath, and a one-line _why this matters_ only where the question could be misread or invite a throwaway answer.
+
+<question-example>
+### What load is the system expected to handle at launch?
+
+_Why this matters: it decides whether we provision for burst traffic now or defer it._
+
+>
+</question-example>
+
+## Anything else?
+
+A closing catch-all: anything we didn't ask that we should know?
+
+</questionnaire-template>

package/.agents/skills/to-questionnaire/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "To Questionnaire"
+  short_description: "Front-load questions into a doc for someone to answer"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/.agents/skills/to-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 ---
 name: to-spec
-description: Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
+description: "Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker: no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed."
 disable-model-invocation: true
 ---
 
-This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a spec (you may know this document as a PRD). Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know.
+This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a spec. Do NOT interview the user; just synthesize what you already know.
 
-The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.
 
 ## Process
 
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
 
 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.
+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
 

package/.agents/skills/to-tickets/SKILL.md

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 ---
 name: to-tickets
-description: Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker — edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker.
+description: Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker (edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker).
 disable-model-invocation: true
 ---
 
 # To Tickets
 
-Break a plan, spec, or conversation into a set of **tickets** — tracer-bullet vertical slices, each declaring the tickets that **block** it.
+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 — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.
 
 ## Process
 
@@ -28,16 +28,16 @@ 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
+- 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.
+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.
+**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
 
@@ -50,17 +50,17 @@ Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each ticket, show:
 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?
+- Are the blocking edges correct: does each ticket only depend on tickets that genuinely gate it?
 - Should any tickets be merged or split further?
 
 Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
 
 ### 5. Publish the tickets to the configured tracker
 
-Publish the approved tickets. **How** depends on the tracker `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` configured — the tickets are the same either way, only the shape of the blocking edges changes:
+Publish the approved tickets. **How** depends on the tracker `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` configured; the tickets are the same either way, only the shape of the blocking edges changes:
 
-- **Local files** → write one file per ticket under `.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/<NN>-<slug>.md`, numbered from `01` in dependency order (blockers first). Each file's "Blocked by" lists the numbers/titles it depends on. Use the per-ticket file template below — one ticket per file, never a single combined file.
-- **A real issue tracker (GitHub, Linear, …)** → publish one issue per ticket in dependency order (blockers first) so each ticket's blocking edges can reference real identifiers. Use the platform's native blocking / 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.
+- **Local files** → write one file per ticket under `.scratch/<feature-slug>/issues/<NN>-<slug>.md`, numbered from `01` in dependency order (blockers first). Each file's "Blocked by" lists the numbers/titles it depends on. Use the per-ticket file template below: one ticket per file, never a single combined file.
+- **A real issue tracker (GitHub, Linear, …)** → publish one issue per ticket in dependency order (blockers first) so each ticket's blocking edges can reference real identifiers. Use the platform's native blocking / 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.
 
@@ -68,11 +68,11 @@ Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.
 
 <local-ticket-template>
 
-# <NN> — <Ticket title>
+# <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.
+**What to build:** the end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective, not a layer-by-layer implementation list.
 
-**Blocked by:** the numbers/titles of the tickets that gate this one, or "None — can start immediately".
+**Blocked by:** the numbers/titles of the tickets that gate this one, or "None (can start immediately)".
 
 **Status:** ready-for-agent
 
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ A reference to the parent issue on the tracker (if the source was an existing is
 
 ## What to build
 
-The end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective — not layer-by-layer implementation.
+The end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective, not layer-by-layer implementation.
 
 ## Acceptance criteria
 
@@ -98,8 +98,8 @@ The end-to-end behaviour this ticket makes work, from the user's perspective —
 
 ## Blocked by
 
-- A reference to each blocking ticket, or "None — can start immediately".
+- 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.
+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/.agents/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # 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.
+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.
+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
 
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ The issue may sit in `ready-for-agent` for days or weeks. The codebase will chan
 
 - **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 file paths: they go stale
 - **Don't** reference line numbers
 - **Don't** assume the current implementation structure will remain the same
 
@@ -53,9 +53,9 @@ 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
+- `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
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ 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,
+- 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
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ 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
+- 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
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ 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,
+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.
 

package/.agents/skills/triage/OUT-OF-SCOPE.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 
 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
+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
 
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thi
 
 ## 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.
+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
@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ interface ThemeConfig {
 
 ## Prior requests
 
-- #42 — "Add dark mode support"
-- #87 — "Night theme for accessibility"
-- #134 — "Dark theme option"
+- #42: "Add dark mode support"
+- #87: "Night theme for accessibility"
+- #134: "Dark theme option"
 ```
 
 ### Naming the file
@@ -59,31 +59,31 @@ Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugi
 
 ### Writing the reason
 
-The reason should be substantive — not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
+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.
+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?"
+- 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
+- **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.
+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.
 
@@ -101,5 +101,5 @@ The flow:
 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 skill does not need to reopen old issues; they're historical records
 - The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage

package/.agents/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: triage
-description: Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles — categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.
+description: Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles, categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.
 disable-model-invocation: true
 ---
 
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ disable-model-invocation: true
 
 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.
+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**, using the same roles, same states, and 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:
 
@@ -18,31 +18,31 @@ Every comment or issue posted to the issue tracker during triage **must** start
 
 ## 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
+- [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
+- `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
+- `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 - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
+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 run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.
 
-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.
+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
 
@@ -57,33 +57,33 @@ The maintainer invokes `/triage` and describes what they want in natural languag
 
 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.
+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.
+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), so 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.
+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.
+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 grilling, 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.
+3. **Verify the claim.** Before any grilling, 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. **Grill (if needed).** If the request needs fleshing out, run the `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling` skills together — grill it into shape one question at a time, sharpening domain terms and updating `CONTEXT.md`/ADRs inline as decisions land.
+4. **Grill (if needed).** If the request needs fleshing out, call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling", and grill it into shape 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.
+   - `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).
+   - For `wontfix`, close the issue, 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)**: give a 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
 

package/.agents/skills/wait-what/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+name: wait-what
+description: "Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+Wait, I don't understand where you've got to here. Re-pitch that: give me a little bit of context, talk in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, and use the ubiquitous language from `CONTEXT.md` (follow `CONTEXT-MAP.md` to the right one if the repo has more than one).

package/.agents/skills/wait-what/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Wait What"
+  short_description: "Re-pitch that: simpler, with the context I'm missing"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false