@ikon85/agent-workflow-kit 0.10.0

package/.agents/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

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

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

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# 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"
+- — "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`. 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/.agents/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+name: triage
+disable-model-invocation: true
+description: "Triage issues through the project board workflow. Use when user wants to triage issues, review incoming bugs or feature requests, prepare issues for an AFK agent, or manage issue workflow."
+---
+
+# Triage
+
+Move issues on the project issue tracker through the board-driven workflow.
+
+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
+
+## Labels
+
+### Category labels (exactly one per issue)
+
+| Label | When |
+|---|---|
+| `type:bug` | Something is broken |
+| `type:feature` | New user-facing capability |
+| `type:followup` | Emerged from a PR / live-verify |
+| `type:refactor` | Code-quality / structural improvement |
+| `type:idea` | Raw idea, not yet decided |
+| `type:research` | Investigation / spike |
+| `type:dust` | Tech-debt / cleanup / rename |
+| `type:cluster` | Parent issue grouping a wave |
+
+### Required labels (both must be present after triage)
+
+- exactly one category `type:*` (table above)
+- `priority:high` / `priority:medium` / `priority:low`
+
+Wave assignment is **not** a triage step. Waves originate via `board-to-waves`
+(clustering → anchor with a Wave-number field, membership via parent link). No
+per-issue `wave:*` label — deprecated.
+
+### State labels (two are in active use)
+
+- `needs-info` — waiting on reporter for more information
+- `ready-for-agent` — fully specified, ready for an AFK agent
+
+**Board status is authoritative** for everything else (the role arc idea → triaged → spec → inProgress → review → done, names per the profile's `fields.status.roles`). State labels are not used for `needs-triage`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix` — those states live in the board or are handled by closing the issue.
+
+`ready-for-human` does not exist in this project — all implementation is done by Claude. If an issue genuinely requires <maintainer>'s judgment before Claude can act, mark it `needs-info` and ask the specific question.
+
+## Invocation
+
+The maintainer invokes `/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"
+- "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. **Incomplete labels** — missing `type:*` or `priority:*`.
+2. **Board status at the idea role** — not yet triaged.
+3. **`needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes** — needs re-evaluation.
+
+Show counts and a one-line summary per issue. Let the maintainer pick.
+
+## Triage a specific issue
+
+1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue (body, comments, labels, reporter, dates). 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. Read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any prior rejection that resembles this issue.
+
+2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and priority recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the issue. Wait for direction.
+
+3. **Reproduce (bugs only).** Before any grilling, attempt reproduction: read the reporter's steps, trace the relevant code, run tests or commands. Report what happened — successful repro with code path, failed repro, or insufficient detail (a strong `needs-info` signal). A confirmed repro makes a much stronger agent brief.
+
+4. **Grill (if needed).** If the issue needs fleshing out, run a `/grill-with-docs` session.
+
+5. **Apply the outcome:**
+   - `ready-for-agent` — add label, post an agent brief comment ([AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md)), update board status to `Triaged`.
+   - `needs-info` — add label, post triage notes (template below).
+   - "won't fix" — polite explanation comment, close issue. For enhancements write to `.out-of-scope/` first ([OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md)).
+   - Ensure `type:*` and `priority:*` are set before closing the triage.
+
+## Board sync
+
+After every state change make sure the issue is on the board and its Status reflects the outcome — one call:
+```bash
+python3 scripts/board-sync.py add --issue <number> --status-role triaged
+```
+`add` puts the issue on the board **and** stamps the Status field in one step. Board project + field IDs are the SSOT in `docs/agents/board-sync.md` (read from the project root — Memory is invisible to Codex-side agents). Wave is **not** set here — that happens in `board-to-waves` clustering.
+
+## Quick state override
+
+If the maintainer says "move #42 to ready-for-agent", trust them and apply the label directly. Confirm what you're about to do (label changes, comment, board update), then act. Skip grilling. If moving to `ready-for-agent` without a grilling 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 grilling 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, 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/.agents/skills/triage/THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Third-Party Notices
+
+This skill is adapted from **Matt Pocock's skills**
+(https://github.com/mattpocock/skills), `skills/engineering/triage` @ d574778, Copyright (c) 2026 Matt Pocock,
+used under the MIT License. Locally adapted (fork-and-own); see PROVENANCE.md.
+
+```
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Matt Pocock
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.
+```

package/.agents/skills/verify-spike/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+name: verify-spike
+"description": "Answer a single yes/no factual question about reality with a minimal throwaway, read-only harness and output-proof. Use when a plan, ADR, or implementation hinges on an empirically-checkable fact — does a library API exist / behave this way on this version, does the runtime / DB / platform actually have this capability, does an external assumption hold — and you need a proven verdict before locking the decision. NOT for design exploration (prototype), bug root-cause (diagnose), or building a feature (tdd)."
+---
+
+# Verify Spike
+
+A verify-spike is **throwaway, read-only code that proves a yes/no fact about reality.** The question is binary; the spike makes the answer empirical instead of assumed.
+
+This is the "Verify First" rule with a runnable harness behind it: when you cannot answer an externally-knowable fact from docs alone, build the smallest thing that forces reality to answer.
+
+## When this and not another skill
+
+| You are asking… | Skill |
+|---|---|
+| "Is this fact true against the real lib / runtime / DB / platform?" (yes/no) | **verify-spike** |
+| "Which of these options, given these trade-offs?" / "I need to research this before I can choose." (bounded, sub-grill) | `decision-gate` |
+| "Does this design / state model / UI feel right?" (open-ended) | `prototype` |
+| "Why is this broken / slow?" (root-cause of a known defect) | `diagnose` |
+| "Build this behaviour, test-first." (new feature/fix) | `tdd` |
+
+If the question is really "what should this be", it is not a verify-spike — those are open, not yes/no.
+
+## Steps
+
+1. **Frame one falsifiable question.** Write it down as a single sentence with a yes/no answer and the exact version/context it is scoped to — e.g. "Does `customType.mapFromDriverValue` run on `drizzle-orm@1.0.0-rc.3` + node-postgres?". Name what a YES vs a NO looks like in the output *before* you run anything.
+2. **Build the smallest harness that forces the answer.** Borrow the feedback-loop toolkit from `diagnose` Phase 1 — a one-call throwaway script, a fixture replay, a tiny HTTP/curl probe, a headless-browser assertion. Pick the cheapest one that touches the real thing (real lib version, real runtime, the actual DB read). One command to run; locate it in a clearly-throwaway path (`scratch/`, `*.spike.ts`). If a project layer exists at `docs/agents/skills/verify-spike.md`, follow its harness-placement/import rules — some repos need spikes inside a package dir so real imports resolve.
+3. **Run it and capture the proof.** Keep the raw output — the value, the error, the stack, the HTTP status. The verdict is only as good as the evidence pasted under it.
+4. **Record the verdict durably, with its evidence inline.** Yes/No + the proof (output snippet / `file:line` / version) + the date + the scope it was checked at. Sink it where the decision lives: an ADR, the issue body, the plan, or a PR comment. A verdict without inline evidence is just an unverified claim — keep the proof attached so a later reader does not have to re-run the spike to trust it.
+5. **Delete the harness.** The *answer* is the only keeper. Remove the spike code (or fold the proven fact into real code) so nothing throwaway rots in the repo.
+
+## Rules
+
+1. **Read-only.** No schema changes, no migrations, no writes to a shared/prod resource. A DB question hits a scratch row or a read; never mutate state you did not create.
+2. **Throwaway from line one.** No tests, no abstractions, no error handling beyond what makes it run. The spike is deleted in step 5 — do not polish it.
+3. **Touch the real thing.** The whole point is empirical: pin the actual version, hit the actual runtime/API. A spike against a mock proves nothing.
+4. **Evidence, not assertion.** "It works" is not a verdict. The output is.
+5. **Scope honestly.** The answer holds only for the version/context you tested. State that scope in the verdict so a later version bump re-opens the question instead of inheriting a stale yes/no.
+6. **No forced verdict.** A run that yields neither a clean YES nor NO (flaky, environment-dependent, ambiguous output) is *undecided* — say so, tighten the question or the harness, and re-run; never round an ambiguous result to the nearest yes/no.

package/.agents/skills/wayfinder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+---
+name: wayfinder
+description: "Plan a huge chunk of work — more than one agent session can hold — as a shared map of investigation tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear."
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+A loose idea has arrived — too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog: the way from here to the **destination** isn't visible yet. Wayfinding is about finding that way, not charging at the destination. This skill charts the way as a **shared map** on the repo's issue tracker, then works its tickets one at a time until the route is clear.
+
+The destination varies per effort, and naming it is the first act of charting — it shapes every ticket. It might be a spec to hand off and iterate on, a decision to lock before planning starts, or a change made in place like a data-structure migration. The map is domain-agnostic — engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape.
+
+## Plan, don't do
+
+Wayfinder is **planning** by default: each ticket resolves a decision, and the map is done when the way is clear — nothing left to decide before someone goes and does the thing. The pull to just do the work is usually the signal you've reached the edge of the map and it's time to hand off. An effort can override this in its **Notes** — carrying execution into the map itself — but absent that, produce decisions, not deliverables.
+
+## Refer by name
+
+Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a **name** — its title. In everything the human reads — narration, the map's Decisions-so-far — refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of `#42, #43, #44` is illegible; names read at a glance. The id and URL don't vanish — a name wraps its link — but they ride *inside* the name, never stand in for it.
+
+## The Map
+
+The map is a single issue on this repo's issue tracker, labelled `wayfinder:map` — the canonical artifact. Its tickets are child issues of the map.
+
+The map is an **index**, not a store. It lists the decisions made and points at the tickets that hold their detail; a decision lives in exactly one place — its ticket — so the map never restates it, only gists it and links.
+
+**Where the map, its child tickets, blocking, and frontier queries physically live is tracker-specific.** The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-workflow` if not. Consult the tracker doc's "Wayfinding operations" section for how _this_ repo expresses them. If no tracker has been provided, default to the local-markdown tracker.
+
+### The map body
+
+The whole map at low resolution, loaded once per session. Open tickets are **not** listed — they are open child issues, found by query.
+
+```markdown
+## Destination
+
+<what reaching the end of this map looks like — the spec, decision, or change this effort is finding its way to. One or two lines; every session orients to it before choosing a ticket.>
+
+## Notes
+
+<domain; skills every session should consult; standing preferences for this effort>
+
+## Decisions so far
+
+<!-- the index — one line per closed ticket: enough to judge relevance, then zoom the link for the detail the ticket holds -->
+
+- [<closed ticket title>](link) — <one-line gist of the answer>
+
+## Not yet specified
+
+<!-- see "Fog of war": in-scope fog you can't ticket yet; graduates as the frontier advances -->
+
+## Out of scope
+
+<!-- see "Out of scope": work ruled beyond the destination; closed, never graduates -->
+```
+
+### Tickets
+
+Each ticket is a **child issue** of the map; the tracker's issue id is its identity. Its body is the question, sized to one 100K token agent session:
+
+```markdown
+## Question
+
+<the decision or investigation this ticket resolves>
+```
+
+Each ticket carries a `wayfinder:<type>` label — one of `research`, `prototype`, `grilling`, `task` (see [Ticket Types](#ticket-types)).
+
+A session **claims** a ticket by assigning it to the dev driving the map, **first**, before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it. That assignee _is_ the claim: an open, unassigned ticket is unclaimed.
+
+Blocking uses the tracker's **native** dependency relationship — essential because it renders the frontier _visually_ in the tracker's own UI, so the human sees what's takeable without opening the map. Only a tracker that lacks native blocking falls back to a body convention. A ticket is **unblocked** when every ticket blocking it is closed; the **frontier** is the open, unblocked, unclaimed children — the edge of the known.
+
+The answer isn't part of the body — it's recorded on resolution (see [Work through the map](#work-through-the-map)). Assets created while resolving a ticket are linked from the issue, not pasted in.
+
+## Ticket Types
+
+Every ticket is either **HITL** — human in the loop, worked *with* a human who speaks for themselves — or **AFK**, driven by the agent alone. A HITL ticket only resolves through that live exchange; the agent never stands in for the human's side of it (a grilling agent that answers its own questions has broken this).
+
+- **Research** (AFK): Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases. Creates a markdown summary as a linked asset. Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
+- **Prototype** (HITL): Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to — an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code via the /prototype skill. Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
+- **Grilling** (HITL): Conversation via the /grill-me and /domain-modeling skills, one question at a time. The default case.
+- **Task** (HITL or AFK): Manual work that must happen before a *decision* can be made — nothing to decide, prototype, or research, but the discussion is blocked until it's done. Signing up for a service so its API can be judged, provisioning access, moving data so its shape can be seen. This is the one type that *does* rather than decides — and it earns its place by unblocking a decision, not by delivering the destination. The agent drives it alone where it can (AFK); otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist (HITL). Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.
+
+## Fog of war
+
+The map is _deliberately_ incomplete: don't chart what you can't yet see. Beyond the live tickets lies the **fog of war** — the dim view of decisions and investigations you can tell are coming but can't yet pin down, because they hang on questions still open. Resolving a ticket clears the fog ahead of it, graduating whatever's now specifiable into fresh tickets — one at a time, until the way to the destination is clear and no tickets remain.
+
+The map's **Not yet specified** section is where that dim view is written down: the suspected question, the area to revisit later. It's the undiscovered frontier _toward_ the destination — everything here is in scope, just not sharp enough to ticket. Write as loosely or as fully as the view allows; it doubles as a signpost for collaborators reading where the effort is headed.
+
+**Fog or ticket?** The test is whether you can state the question precisely now — _not_ whether you can answer it now.
+
+- **Ticket when** the question is already sharp — even if it's blocked and you can't act on it yet.
+- **Not yet specified when** you can't yet phrase it that sharply. Don't pre-slice the fog into ticket-sized pieces: it's coarser than a ticket, and one patch may graduate into several tickets, or none, once the frontier reaches it.
+
+**Not yet specified** excludes what's already decided (Decisions so far), what's already a live ticket, and what's out of scope (the next section).
+
+## Out of scope
+
+Fog only ever gathers _toward_ the destination. The destination fixes the scope, so work beyond it is **out of scope** — it isn't fog, and it doesn't belong in **Not yet specified**. It gets its own **Out of scope** section on the map: work you've consciously ruled out of _this_ effort. Scope, not sharpness, lands it here.
+
+Out-of-scope work never graduates — the frontier stops at the destination — so it returns only if the destination is redrawn, and then as a fresh effort, not a resumption.
+
+Ruling something out of scope is a scoping act, not a step on the route. When a ticket that already exists turns out to sit past the destination — mis-scoped in while charting, or exposed by a resolution — **close it** (a closed ticket is unambiguously off the frontier) and leave one line in the **Out of scope** section: the gist plus why it's out of scope, linking the closed ticket. It stays out of **Decisions so far**, which records the route actually walked — a scope boundary isn't a step on it.
+
+## Invocation
+
+Two modes. Either way, **never resolve more than one ticket per session.**
+
+### Chart the map
+
+User invokes with a loose idea.
+
+1. **Name the destination.** Run a `/grill-me` and `/domain-modeling` session to pin down what this map is finding its way to — the spec, decision, or change. The destination fixes the scope, so it's settled first.
+2. **Map the frontier.** Grill again, **breadth-first** this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now. **If this surfaces no fog** — the way to the destination is already clear, the whole journey small enough for one session — you don't need a map. Stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed.
+3. **Create the map** (label `wayfinder:map`): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into **Not yet specified**.
+4. **Create the tickets you can specify now** as child issues of the map — then wire blocking edges in a **second pass** (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the fog — the **Not yet specified** section.
+5. Stop — charting the map is one session's work; do not also resolve tickets.
+
+### Work through the map
+
+User invokes with a map (URL or number). A ticket is **optional** — without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.
+
+1. Load the **map** — the low-res view, not every ticket body.
+2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise take the first frontier ticket in order. **Claim it**: assign it to yourself before any work.
+3. Resolve it — **zoom as needed**: fetch the full body of any related or closed ticket on demand; invoke the skills the `## Notes` block names. If in doubt, use `/grill-me` and `/domain-modeling`.
+4. Record the resolution: post the answer as a **resolution comment**, **close** the issue, and **append a context pointer** to the map's Decisions-so-far.
+5. Add newly-surfaced tickets (create-then-wire); graduate any fog the answer has made specifiable, clearing each graduated patch from **Not yet specified** so it lives only as its new ticket. If the answer reveals a ticket — this one or another — sits beyond the destination, **rule it out of scope** rather than resolving it on the route. If the decision invalidates other parts of the map, update or delete those tickets.
+
+The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently.

package/.agents/skills/wayfinder/THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Third-Party Notices
+
+This skill is adapted from **Matt Pocock's skills**
+(https://github.com/mattpocock/skills), `skills/engineering/wayfinder` @ d574778, Copyright (c) 2026 Matt Pocock,
+used under the MIT License. Locally adapted (fork-and-own); see PROVENANCE.md.
+
+```
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Matt Pocock
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.
+```