@martinffx/atelier 1.0.2 → 1.2.0

package/skills/oracle-doubt/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+---
+name: oracle-doubt
+description: >
+  Adversarial review of non-trivial decisions using fresh-context scrutiny.
+  Use when correctness matters more than speed, when stakes are high
+  (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or before
+  committing significant architectural or implementation choices.
+user-invocable: true
+---
+
+# Doubt: Fresh-Context Adversarial Review
+
+A confident answer is not a correct one. Long sessions accumulate context that quietly turns assumptions into "facts" without anyone noticing. Doubt-driven development is the discipline of materializing a fresh-context reviewer — biased to **disprove**, not approve — before any non-trivial output stands.
+
+This is not `/review`. `/review` is a verdict on a finished artifact. This is an in-flight posture: non-trivial decisions get cross-examined while course-correction is still cheap.
+
+## When to Use
+
+A decision is **non-trivial** when at least one of these is true:
+
+- It introduces or modifies branching logic
+- It crosses a module or service boundary
+- It asserts a property the type system or compiler cannot verify (thread safety, idempotence, ordering, invariants)
+- Its correctness depends on context the future reader cannot see
+- Its blast radius is irreversible (production deploy, data migration, public API change)
+
+Apply the skill when:
+
+- About to make an architectural decision under uncertainty
+- About to commit non-trivial code
+- About to claim a non-obvious fact ("this is safe", "this scales", "this matches the spec")
+- Working in code you don't fully understand
+
+**When NOT to use:**
+
+- Mechanical operations (renaming, formatting, file moves)
+- Following a clear, unambiguous user instruction
+- Reading or summarizing existing code
+- One-line changes with obvious correctness
+- Pure tooling operations (running tests, listing files)
+- The user has explicitly asked for speed over verification
+
+If you doubt every keystroke, you ship nothing. The skill applies only to non-trivial decisions as defined above.
+
+## Loading Constraints
+
+This skill is designed for the **main-session orchestrator**, where Step 3 (DOUBT) can spawn fresh-context reviewers via the `task` tool.
+
+- **Do NOT add this skill to a persona's `skills:` frontmatter.** A persona that follows Step 3 would spawn another persona — the orchestration anti-pattern explicitly forbidden by `references/orchestration-patterns.md` ("personas do not invoke other personas").
+- **If you find yourself applying this skill from inside a subagent context** (where nested subagent spawn is prevented): the preferred path is to surface to the user that doubt-driven cannot run nested and let the main session handle it. As a last resort only, a degraded self-questioning fallback exists — rewrite ARTIFACT + CONTRACT as a fresh self-prompt with a hard mental separator from your prior reasoning, and walk Steps 1–5. This is **not fresh-context review** (you carry your own context with you), so flag the result as degraded and prefer escalation whenever the user is reachable.
+
+## The Process
+
+Copy this checklist when applying the skill:
+
+```
+Doubt cycle:
+- [ ] Step 1: CLAIM — wrote the claim + why-it-matters
+- [ ] Step 2: EXTRACT — isolated artifact + contract, stripped reasoning
+- [ ] Step 3: DOUBT — invoked fresh-context reviewer with adversarial prompt
+- [ ] Step 4: RECONCILE — classified every finding against the artifact text
+- [ ] Step 5: STOP — met stop condition (trivial findings, 3 cycles, or user override)
+```
+
+### Step 1: CLAIM — Surface what stands
+
+Name the decision in two or three lines:
+
+```
+CLAIM: "The new caching layer is thread-safe under the
+        read-heavy workload described in the spec."
+WHY THIS MATTERS: a race here corrupts user data and is
+                  hard to detect in QA.
+```
+
+If you can't write the claim that compactly, you have a vibe, not a decision. Surface it before scrutinizing it.
+
+### Step 2: EXTRACT — Smallest reviewable unit
+
+A fresh-context reviewer needs the **artifact** and the **contract**, not the journey.
+
+- **Code**: the diff or the function — not the whole file
+- **Decision**: the proposal in 3–5 sentences plus the constraints it has to satisfy
+- **Assertion**: the claim plus the evidence that supposedly supports it (kept distinct from the Step 1 CLAIM block, which is the orchestrator's hypothesis under scrutiny)
+
+Strip your reasoning. If you hand over conclusions, you'll get back validation of your conclusions. The unit must be small enough that a reviewer can hold it in mind in one read — if it's a 500-line PR, decompose first.
+
+### Step 3: DOUBT — Invoke the fresh-context reviewer
+
+The reviewer's prompt **must be adversarial**. Framing decides the answer.
+
+Use the adversarial prompt template from [references/adversarial-prompt.md](references/adversarial-prompt.md). The template is pasted verbatim into the subagent invocation to override any persona's default balanced response shape.
+
+**Pass ARTIFACT + CONTRACT only. Do NOT pass the CLAIM.** Handing the reviewer your conclusion biases it toward agreement. The reviewer must independently determine whether the artifact satisfies the contract.
+
+#### Cross-model escalation
+
+A single-model reviewer shares blind spots with the original author — a colder, different-architecture perspective catches them. Doubt-driven is already opt-in for non-trivial decisions, so within that scope offering cross-model is part of the skill's value, not optional friction.
+
+**Interactive sessions: always offer. Never silently skip.**
+
+**Step 1: Ask the user**
+
+After the single-model review in Step 3 above, but before RECONCILE, pause and ask:
+
+> *"Single-model review complete. Want a cross-model second opinion? Options: spawn parallel subagents with different types (oracle + architect), manual external review (you paste it elsewhere), or skip."*
+
+This question is mandatory in every interactive doubt cycle — even on artifacts that feel low-stakes. The user — not the agent — decides whether the cost is worth it. The agent's job is to surface the choice.
+
+**Step 2: If the user picks parallel subagents — dispatch**
+
+Spawn two `task` subagents in parallel with the same adversarial prompt + ARTIFACT + CONTRACT:
+
+```
+task tool:
+  subagent_type: oracle
+task tool:
+  subagent_type: architect
+```
+
+Each subagent starts with isolated context by design. Take both outputs into Step 4 (RECONCILE).
+
+**Step 3: If the user skips**
+
+Acknowledge the skip in the output (*"Proceeding with single-model findings only"*) and continue to RECONCILE. Skipping is fine; silent skipping is not.
+
+**Non-interactive contexts** (CI, scheduled runs):
+
+- Cross-model is **skipped**, and the skip must be **announced** in the output: *"Cross-model skipped: non-interactive context."*
+- **Never invoke external subagents without explicit user authorization** — this is a load-bearing safety property.
+
+Cross-model adds cost, latency, and tool fragility. The agent surfaces the choice every cycle; the user decides whether this artifact warrants it.
+
+### Step 4: RECONCILE — Fold findings back
+
+The reviewer's output is data, not verdict. **You are still the orchestrator.** Re-read the artifact text against each finding before classifying — rubber-stamping the reviewer is the same failure mode as ignoring it.
+
+For each finding, classify in this **precedence order** (first matching class wins):
+
+1. **Contract misread** — reviewer flagged something specifically because the CONTRACT you provided was unclear or incomplete. Fix the contract first, re-classify on the next cycle.
+2. **Valid + actionable** — real issue requiring a change to the artifact. Change it, re-loop.
+3. **Valid trade-off** — issue is real but cost of fixing exceeds cost of accepting. Document the trade-off explicitly so the user sees it.
+4. **Noise** — reviewer flagged something that's actually correct under context the reviewer didn't have. Note it, move on, and ask: would adding that context to the contract have prevented the false flag?
+
+A fresh reviewer can be wrong because it lacks context. Don't defer just because it's "fresh."
+
+### Step 5: STOP — Bounded loop, not recursion
+
+Stop when:
+
+- Next iteration returns only trivial or already-considered findings, **or**
+- 3 cycles completed (escalate to user, don't grind a fourth alone), **or**
+- User explicitly says "ship it"
+
+If after 3 cycles the reviewer still surfaces substantive issues, the artifact may not be ready. Surface this to the user — three unresolved cycles is information about the artifact, not a reason to keep looping.
+
+If 3 cycles is "obviously insufficient" because the artifact is large: the artifact is too big — return to Step 2 and decompose. Do not lift the bound.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "I'm confident, skip the doubt step" | Confidence correlates poorly with correctness on novel problems. Moments of certainty are exactly when blind spots hide. |
+| "Spawning a reviewer is expensive" | Debugging a wrong commit in production is more expensive. The check is bounded; the bug isn't. |
+| "The reviewer will just nitpick" | Only if unscoped. Constrain the prompt to "issues that would make this fail under the contract." |
+| "I'll do doubt at the end with `/review`" | `/review` is a final gate. Doubt-driven catches wrong directions early when course-correction is cheap. By PR time it's too late. |
+| "If I doubt every step I'll never ship" | The skill applies to non-trivial decisions, not every keystroke. Re-read "When NOT to Use." |
+| "Two opinions are always better than one" | Not when the second has less context and produces noise. Reconcile, don't defer. |
+| "The reviewer disagreed so I was wrong" | The reviewer lacks your context — disagreement is information, not verdict. Re-read the artifact, classify, then decide. |
+| "Cross-model is always better" | Cross-model catches blind spots a single model shares with itself, but it adds cost and tool fragility. Offer it every interactive doubt cycle — the user decides whether the artifact warrants it. The agent's job is to surface the choice, not to gate it. |
+| "User said yes once, so I can keep invoking subagents" | Each invocation is its own authorization. The artifact, the prompt, and the context change between calls — re-confirm with the user before every run. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Spawning a fresh-context reviewer for a one-line rename or formatting change
+- Treating reviewer output as authoritative without re-reading the artifact text
+- Looping >3 cycles without escalating to the user
+- Prompting the reviewer with "is this good?" instead of "find issues"
+- Skipping doubt under time pressure on a high-stakes decision
+- Re-spawning fresh-context on an unchanged artifact (you'll get the same findings; you're stalling)
+- **Doubt theater (checkable signal)**: across 2 or more cycles where the reviewer surfaced substantive findings, zero findings were classified as actionable. You are validating, not doubting. Stop and escalate.
+- Doubting only after committing — that's `/review`, not doubt-driven development
+- Hardcoding a subagent invocation without confirming with the user that the approach is acceptable
+- **Silently skipping cross-model in an interactive doubt cycle.** Even when not recommending it, the offer must be visible. Skipping is fine; silent skipping is not.
+- Falling back silently when a subagent errors or is unavailable — surface the failure and let the user redirect
+- Stripping the contract from the reviewer's input
+- Passing the CLAIM to the reviewer (biases toward agreement)
+
+## Interaction with Other Skills
+
+- **`code-review` / `/review`**: complementary. `/review` is post-hoc PR verdict; doubt-driven is in-flight per-decision. Use both.
+- **`oracle-architect`** / **`spec-research`**: SDD verifies *facts about frameworks* against official docs. Doubt-driven verifies *your reasoning about the artifact*. SDD checks the API exists; doubt-driven checks you used it correctly under the contract.
+- **`oracle-testing`**: TDD's RED step is doubt made concrete — a failing test is a disproof attempt. When TDD applies, that failing test *is* the doubt step for behavioral claims.
+- **`code-debug`**: when the reviewer surfaces a real failure mode, drop into the debugging skill to localize and fix.
+
+## Verification
+
+After applying doubt-driven development:
+
+- Every non-trivial decision (per the definition above) was named explicitly as a CLAIM before standing
+- At least one fresh-context review per non-trivial artifact (a failing test produced by TDD's RED step satisfies this for behavioral claims, per Interaction with Other Skills)
+- The reviewer received ARTIFACT + CONTRACT — NOT the CLAIM, NOT your reasoning
+- The reviewer's prompt was adversarial ("find issues"), not validating ("is it good")
+- Findings were classified against the artifact text (not rubber-stamped) using the precedence: contract misread / actionable / trade-off / noise
+- A stop condition was met (trivial findings, 3 cycles, or user override)
+- In interactive mode, cross-model was **explicitly offered** to the user (regardless of artifact stakes) and the response was acknowledged in the output
+- In non-interactive mode, cross-model was skipped and the skip was announced
+- Any subagent invocation was preceded by user authorization and confirmation of the approach
+
+## Usage Examples
+
+**Doubt an architectural decision:**
+```
+/atelier-doubt
+CLAIM: "I will use DynamoDB single-table design for the Order service."
+WHY: "Single-table simplifies access patterns but may couple unrelated domains."
+ARTIFACT: "Proposed key schema: PK=ORDER#<id>, SK=METADATA#<id>. All order data in one table."
+CONTRACT: "Must support: 1) lookup by order ID, 2) list by customer, 3) list by status. No cross-domain queries."
+```
+
+**Doubt a code change before commit:**
+```
+/atelier-doubt
+CLAIM: "The retry logic in PaymentService is safe under concurrent requests."
+WHY: "Race here could double-charge customers."
+ARTIFACT: "<paste diff or function>"
+CONTRACT: "Must be idempotent: same paymentId processed twice produces same result, no duplicate charges."
+```
+
+**Doubt a non-obvious assertion:**
+```
+/atelier-doubt
+CLAIM: "This migration is safe to run online without downtime."
+WHY: "Downtime here blocks checkout for all users."
+ARTIFACT: "ALTER TABLE orders ADD COLUMN tracking_id VARCHAR(255); CREATE INDEX idx_tracking ON orders(tracking_id);"
+CONTRACT: "Must not lock table for more than 1 second. Must not fail on 10M row table. Must be backward-compatible with running application code."
+```
+
+## Relationship to Other Skills
+
+| Skill | Use When |
+|---|---|
+| **oracle-doubt** | In-flight adversarial review before a decision stands. Catches wrong directions early. |
+| **oracle-challenge** | Critically evaluating an existing approach or decision after it's been made. |
+| **code-review** | Post-hoc PR verdict on a finished artifact. |
+| **oracle-testing** | TDD RED step serves as the doubt mechanism for behavioral claims. |
+| **oracle-thinkdeep** | Deep exploration and alternative discovery for complex decisions (use doubt after thinkdeep narrows to a specific choice). |
+
+**Key distinction:**
+- `oracle-doubt` = "Before I commit to this, prove me wrong" (pre-commit adversarial review)
+- `oracle-challenge` = "Is this approach valid?" (critical evaluation of standing decisions)
+- `code-review` = "Judge this finished artifact" (post-hoc verdict)

package/skills/oracle-doubt/references/adversarial-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Adversarial Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this prompt when spawning a fresh-context reviewer via the `task` tool.
+The reviewer must receive **ARTIFACT + CONTRACT only** — never the CLAIM or orchestrator's reasoning.
+
+## Template
+
+```
+Adversarial review. Find what is wrong with this artifact.
+Assume the author is overconfident. Look for:
+- Unstated assumptions
+- Edge cases not handled
+- Hidden coupling or shared state
+- Ways the contract could be violated
+- Existing conventions this might break
+- Failure modes under unexpected input
+
+Do NOT validate. Do NOT summarize. Find issues, or state explicitly
+that you cannot find any after thorough examination.
+
+ARTIFACT:
+{ARTIFACT}
+
+CONTRACT:
+{CONTRACT}
+```
+
+## Dispatch via task tool
+
+Spawn **parallel** subagents for cross-perspective review:
+
+```
+# Reviewer 1: oracle perspective
+<task tool call with subagent_type="oracle">
+
+# Reviewer 2: architect perspective
+<task tool call with subagent_type="architect">
+```
+
+Each receives the **same** adversarial prompt above with ARTIFACT and CONTRACT.
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Never pass the CLAIM** — handing the reviewer your conclusion biases them toward agreement
+- **Never pass your reasoning** — the reviewer must independently determine whether the artifact satisfies the contract
+- **Paste this prompt verbatim** — it overrides any persona's default response shape (which may be balanced/validating)
+- **No session context** — the subagent starts fresh with only this prompt

package/skills/oracle-grillme/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+---
+name: oracle-grillme
+description: >
+  Socratic interrogation of plans against the project's domain model and documented decisions.
+  Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan, clarify terminology, or validate assumptions
+  against existing domain language. Updates CONTEXT.md and ADRs inline as decisions crystallise.
+user-invocable: true
+---
+
+# Grill Me
+
+Relentless questioning of your plan against the project's domain model, sharpening terminology and updating documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- **Stress-testing a plan** — "I want to add a refund flow to the Order service"
+- **Clarifying fuzzy language** — "We're calling it 'account' but is that a Customer or a User?"
+- **Onboarding to a domain** — "Walk me through how the Billing context relates to Ordering"
+- **Before writing specs** — Ensuring the domain language is solid before `spec-research` begins
+- **After code review** — "The PR introduces 'cancellation' but our glossary says..."
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- **Simple implementation questions** — Use `oracle-challenge` or `oracle-architect` instead
+- **Debugging** — Use `code-debug`
+- **Testing strategy** — Use `oracle-testing`
+- **Already in spec workflow** — Use `spec-research` + `oracle-architect` for domain discovery during the spec process
+
+---
+
+## How It Works
+
+<interview-loop>
+
+Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree, resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one. For each question, provide your recommended answer.
+
+Ask the questions one at a time, waiting for feedback on each question before continuing.
+
+If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
+
+</interview-loop>
+
+---
+
+## Domain Awareness
+
+### Discovering Context
+
+Most repos have a single context:
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT.md
+├── docs/
+│   └── adr/
+│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
+│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
+└── src/
+```
+
+If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
+├── docs/
+│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
+├── src/
+│   ├── ordering/
+│   │   ├── CONTEXT.md
+│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
+│   └── billing/
+│       ├── CONTEXT.md
+│       └── docs/adr/
+```
+
+Create files lazily — only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.
+
+### During the Session
+
+#### Challenge Against the Glossary
+
+When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately.
+
+> "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
+
+#### Sharpen Fuzzy Language
+
+When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term.
+
+> "You're saying 'account' — do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."
+
+#### Discuss Concrete Scenarios
+
+When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.
+
+#### Cross-Reference With Code
+
+When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it:
+
+> "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible — which is right?"
+
+#### Update CONTEXT.md Inline
+
+When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up — capture them as they happen. Use the format in [references/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./references/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).
+
+`CONTEXT.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.
+
+#### Offer ADRs Sparingly
+
+Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:
+
+1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
+2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
+3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
+
+If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [references/ADR-FORMAT.md](./references/ADR-FORMAT.md).
+
+---
+
+## Usage Examples
+
+### Stress-Test a New Feature
+```
+/grillme "I want to add a refund flow to the Order service"
+```
+> "Before we go further — your glossary defines 'Order' as a completed purchase. A refund implies the Order is no longer complete. Is 'refund' a state on Order, or a new concept entirely?"
+
+### Clarify Ambiguous Terms
+```
+/grillme "We need to handle 'account' deletions"
+```
+> "You said 'account' — your CONTEXT.md has both Customer and User. Which one are we deleting, and what happens to their Orders?"
+
+### Validate Against Existing Decisions
+```
+/grillme "I'm switching the write model from Postgres to DynamoDB"
+```
+> "ADR-0002 says we chose Postgres for the write model because of ACID requirements. Have those requirements changed, or is this a new trade-off?"
+
+### Onboard to a Domain
+```
+/grillme "Explain how Billing relates to Ordering"
+```
+> "Ordering emits OrderPlaced events. Billing consumes them to create Invoices. But your CONTEXT.md says Invoice is a request for payment — who decides when payment is actually processed?"
+
+---
+
+## Relationship to Other Skills
+
+| Skill | Use When |
+|-------|----------|
+| **oracle-grillme** | Questioning domain assumptions, sharpening terminology, updating docs inline |
+| **oracle-challenge** | Critically evaluating a technical approach or decision |
+| **oracle-architect** | Designing components, data models, API contracts during spec-research |
+| **spec-research** | Structured discovery + architecture → spec.md (use grillme before this to solidify language) |
+
+**Key distinction:**
+- `oracle-challenge` = "Is this approach valid?" (critical evaluation)
+- `oracle-grillme` = "What do we mean by these words?" (domain interrogation)

package/skills/oracle-grillme/references/ADR-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# ADR Format
+
+ADRs live in `docs/adr/` and use sequential numbering: `0001-slug.md`, `0002-slug.md`, etc.
+
+Create the `docs/adr/` directory lazily — only when the first ADR is needed.
+
+## Template
+
+```md
+# {Short title of the decision}
+
+{1-3 sentences: what's the context, what did we decide, and why.}
+```
+
+That's it. An ADR can be a single paragraph. The value is in recording *that* a decision was made and *why* — not in filling out sections.
+
+## Optional Sections
+
+Only include these when they add genuine value. Most ADRs won't need them.
+
+- **Status** frontmatter (`proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN`) — useful when decisions are revisited
+- **Considered Options** — only when the rejected alternatives are worth remembering
+- **Consequences** — only when non-obvious downstream effects need to be called out
+
+## Numbering
+
+Scan `docs/adr/` for the highest existing number and increment by one.
+
+## When to Offer an ADR
+
+All three of these must be true:
+
+1. **Hard to reverse** — the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
+2. **Surprising without context** — a future reader will look at the code and wonder "why on earth did they do it this way?"
+3. **The result of a real trade-off** — there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons
+
+If a decision is easy to reverse, skip it — you'll just reverse it. If it's not surprising, nobody will wonder why. If there was no real alternative, there's nothing to record beyond "we did the obvious thing."
+
+### What Qualifies
+
+- **Architectural shape.** "We're using a monorepo." "The write model is event-sourced, the read model is projected into Postgres."
+- **Integration patterns between contexts.** "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
+- **Technology choices that carry lock-in.** Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target. Not every library — just the ones that would take a quarter to swap out.
+- **Boundary and scope decisions.** "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; other contexts reference it by ID only." The explicit no-s are as valuable as the yes-s.
+- **Deliberate deviations from the obvious path.** "We're using manual SQL instead of an ORM because X." Anything where a reasonable reader would assume the opposite. These stop the next engineer from "fixing" something that was deliberate.
+- **Constraints not visible in the code.** "We can't use AWS because of compliance requirements." "Response times must be under 200ms because of the partner API contract."
+- **Rejected alternatives when the rejection is non-obvious.** If you considered GraphQL and picked REST for subtle reasons, record it — otherwise someone will suggest GraphQL again in six months.

package/skills/oracle-grillme/references/CONTEXT-FORMAT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# CONTEXT.md Format
+
+## Structure
+
+```md
+# {Context Name}
+
+{One or two sentence description of what this context is and why it exists.}
+
+## Language
+
+**Order**:
+{A one or two sentence description of the term}
+_Avoid_: Purchase, transaction
+
+**Invoice**:
+A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery.
+_Avoid_: Bill, payment request
+
+**Customer**:
+A person or organization that places orders.
+_Avoid_: Client, buyer, account
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others as aliases to avoid.
+- **Flag conflicts explicitly.** If a term is used ambiguously, call it out in "Flagged ambiguities" with a clear resolution.
+- **Keep definitions tight.** One or two sentences max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
+- **Show relationships.** Use bold term names and express cardinality where obvious.
+- **Only include terms specific to this project's context.** General programming concepts (timeouts, error types, utility patterns) don't belong even if the project uses them extensively. Before adding a term, ask: is this a concept unique to this context, or a general programming concept? Only the former belongs.
+- **Group terms under subheadings** when natural clusters emerge. If all terms belong to a single cohesive area, a flat list is fine.
+- **Write an example dialogue.** A conversation between a dev and a domain expert that demonstrates how the terms interact naturally and clarifies boundaries between related concepts.
+
+## Single vs Multi-Context Repos
+
+**Single context (most repos):** One `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root.
+
+**Multiple contexts:** A `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root lists the contexts, where they live, and how they relate to each other:
+
+```md
+# Context Map
+
+## Contexts
+
+- [Ordering](./src/ordering/CONTEXT.md) — receives and tracks customer orders
+- [Billing](./src/billing/CONTEXT.md) — generates invoices and processes payments
+- [Fulfillment](./src/fulfillment/CONTEXT.md) — manages warehouse picking and shipping
+
+## Relationships
+
+- **Ordering → Fulfillment**: Ordering emits `OrderPlaced` events; Fulfillment consumes them to start picking
+- **Fulfillment → Billing**: Fulfillment emits `ShipmentDispatched` events; Billing consumes them to generate invoices
+- **Ordering ↔ Billing**: Shared types for `CustomerId` and `Money`
+```
+
+The skill infers which structure applies:
+
+- If `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists, read it to find contexts
+- If only a root `CONTEXT.md` exists, single context
+- If neither exists, create a root `CONTEXT.md` lazily when the first term is resolved
+
+When multiple contexts exist, infer which one the current topic relates to. If unclear, ask.