@mindfoldhq/trellis 0.6.0-beta.2 → 0.6.0-beta.21

package/dist/templates/codex/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -1,500 +1,112 @@
 ---
 name: brainstorm
-description: "Collaborative requirements discovery session optimized for AI coding workflows. Creates task directories, seeds PRDs, runs codebase research, proposes concrete implementation approaches with trade-offs, and converges on MVP scope through structured Q&A. Use when requirements are unclear, multiple implementation paths exist, trade-offs need evaluation, or a complex feature needs scoping before development."
+description: "Guide requirements discovery for a Trellis task after task-creation consent. Use when the user is ready to clarify requirements before implementation."
 ---
 
-# Brainstorm - Requirements Discovery (AI Coding Enhanced)
+# Trellis Brainstorm
 
-**CoreRule**: 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.
+## Non-Negotiable Interview Contract
 
-Ask the questions one at a time.
-
-If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
-
----
-
-Guide AI through collaborative requirements discovery **before implementation**, optimized for AI coding workflows:
-
-* **Task-first** (capture ideas immediately)
-* **Action-before-asking** (reduce low-value questions)
-* **Research-first** for technical choices (avoid asking users to invent options)
-* **Diverge → Converge** (expand thinking, then lock MVP)
-
----
-
-## When to Use
-
-Triggered from `$start` when the user describes a development task, especially when:
-
-* requirements are unclear or evolving
-* there are multiple valid implementation paths
-* trade-offs matter (UX, reliability, maintainability, cost, performance)
-* the user might not know the best options up front
-
----
-
-## Core Principles (Non-negotiable)
-
-1. **Task-first (capture early)**
-   Always ensure a task exists at the start so the user's ideas are recorded immediately.
-
-2. **Action before asking**
-   If you can derive the answer from repo code, docs, configs, conventions, or quick research — do that first.
-
-3. **One question per message**
-   Never overwhelm the user with a list of questions. Ask one, update PRD, repeat.
-
-4. **Prefer concrete options**
-   For preference/decision questions, present 2–3 feasible, specific approaches with trade-offs.
-
-5. **Research-first for technical choices**
-   If the decision depends on industry conventions / similar tools / established patterns, do research first, then propose options.
-
-6. **Diverge → Converge**
-   After initial understanding, proactively consider future evolution, related scenarios, and failure/edge cases — then converge to an MVP with explicit out-of-scope.
-
-7. **No meta questions**
-   Do not ask "should I search?" or "can you paste the code so I can continue?"
-   If you need information: search/inspect. If blocked: ask the minimal blocking question.
-
----
-
-## Step 0: Ensure Task Exists (ALWAYS)
-
-Before any Q&A, ensure a task exists. If none exists, create one immediately.
-
-* Use a **temporary working title** derived from the user's message.
-* It's OK if the title is imperfect — refine later in PRD.
-
-```bash
-TASK_DIR=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "brainstorm: <short goal>" --slug <auto>)
-```
-
-Create/seed `prd.md` immediately with what you know:
-
-```markdown
-# brainstorm: <short goal>
-
-## Goal
-
-<one paragraph: what + why>
-
-## What I already know
-
-* <facts from user message>
-* <facts discovered from repo/docs>
-
-## Assumptions (temporary)
-
-* <assumptions to validate>
-
-## Open Questions
-
-* <ONLY Blocking / Preference questions; keep list short>
-
-## Requirements (evolving)
-
-* <start with what is known>
-
-## Acceptance Criteria (evolving)
-
-* [ ] <testable criterion>
-
-## Definition of Done (team quality bar)
-
-* Tests added/updated (unit/integration where appropriate)
-* Lint / typecheck / CI green
-* Docs/notes updated if behavior changes
-* Rollout/rollback considered if risky
-
-## Out of Scope (explicit)
-
-* <what we will not do in this task>
-
-## Technical Notes
-
-* <files inspected, constraints, links, references>
-* <research notes summary if applicable>
-```
-
----
-
-## Step 1: Auto-Context (DO THIS BEFORE ASKING QUESTIONS)
-
-Before asking questions like "what does the code look like?", gather context yourself:
-
-### Repo inspection checklist
-
-* Identify likely modules/files impacted
-* Locate existing patterns (similar features, conventions, error handling style)
-* Check configs, scripts, existing command definitions
-* Note any constraints (runtime, dependency policy, build tooling)
-
-### Documentation checklist
-
-* Look for existing PRDs/specs/templates
-* Look for command usage examples, README, ADRs if any
-
-Write findings into PRD:
-
-* Add to `What I already know`
-* Add constraints/links to `Technical Notes`
-
----
-
-## Step 2: Classify Complexity (still useful, not gating task creation)
-
-| Complexity   | Criteria                                               | Action                                      |
-| ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------- |
-| **Trivial**  | Single-line fix, typo, obvious change                  | Skip brainstorm, implement directly         |
-| **Simple**   | Clear goal, 1–2 files, scope well-defined              | Ask 1 confirm question, then implement      |
-| **Moderate** | Multiple files, some ambiguity                         | Light brainstorm (2–3 high-value questions) |
-| **Complex**  | Vague goal, architectural choices, multiple approaches | Full brainstorm                             |
-
-> Note: Task already exists from Step 0. Classification only affects depth of brainstorming.
-
----
-
-## Step 3: Question Gate (Ask ONLY high-value questions)
-
-Before asking ANY question, run the following gate:
-
-### Gate A — Can I derive this without the user?
-
-If answer is available via:
-
-* repo inspection (code/config)
-* docs/specs/conventions
-* quick market/OSS research
-
-→ **Do not ask.** Fetch it, summarize, update PRD.
-
-### Gate B — Is this a meta/lazy question?
-
-Examples:
-
-* "Should I search?"
-* "Can you paste the code so I can proceed?"
-* "What does the code look like?" (when repo is available)
-
-→ **Do not ask.** Take action.
-
-### Gate C — What type of question is it?
-
-* **Blocking**: cannot proceed without user input
-* **Preference**: multiple valid choices, depends on product/UX/risk preference
-* **Derivable**: should be answered by inspection/research
-
-→ Only ask **Blocking** or **Preference**.
-
----
-
-## Step 4: Research-first Mode (Mandatory for technical choices)
-
-### Trigger conditions (any → research-first)
-
-* The task involves selecting an approach, library, protocol, framework, template system, plugin mechanism, or CLI UX convention
-* The user asks for "best practice", "how others do it", "recommendation"
-* The user can't reasonably enumerate options
-
-### Research steps
-
-1. Identify 2–4 comparable tools/patterns
-2. Summarize common conventions and why they exist
-3. Map conventions onto our repo constraints
-4. Produce **2–3 feasible approaches** for our project
-
-### Research output format (PRD)
+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.
 
-Add a section in PRD (either within Technical Notes or as its own):
-
-```markdown
-## Research Notes
-
-### What similar tools do
-
-* ...
-* ...
-
-### Constraints from our repo/project
-
-* ...
-
-### Feasible approaches here
-
-**Approach A: <name>** (Recommended)
-
-* How it works:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-**Approach B: <name>**
-
-* How it works:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-**Approach C: <name>** (optional)
-
-* ...
-```
-
-Then ask **one** preference question:
-
-* "Which approach do you prefer: A / B / C (or other)?"
-
----
-
-## Step 5: Expansion Sweep (DIVERGE) — Required after initial understanding
-
-After you can summarize the goal, proactively broaden thinking before converging.
-
-### Expansion categories (keep to 1–2 bullets each)
-
-1. **Future evolution**
-
-   * What might this feature become in 1–3 months?
-   * What extension points are worth preserving now?
-
-2. **Related scenarios**
-
-   * What adjacent commands/flows should remain consistent with this?
-   * Are there parity expectations (create vs update, import vs export, etc.)?
-
-3. **Failure & edge cases**
-
-   * Conflicts, offline/network failure, retries, idempotency, compatibility, rollback
-   * Input validation, security boundaries, permission checks
-
-### Expansion message template (to user)
-
-```markdown
-I understand you want to implement: <current goal>.
-
-Before diving into design, let me quickly diverge to consider three categories (to avoid rework later):
-
-1. Future evolution: <1–2 bullets>
-2. Related scenarios: <1–2 bullets>
-3. Failure/edge cases: <1–2 bullets>
-
-For this MVP, which would you like to include (or none)?
-
-1. Current requirement only (minimal viable)
-2. Add <X> (reserve for future extension)
-3. Add <Y> (improve robustness/consistency)
-4. Other: describe your preference
-```
-
-Then update PRD:
-
-* What's in MVP → `Requirements`
-* What's excluded → `Out of Scope`
-
----
-
-## Step 6: Q&A Loop (CONVERGE)
-
-### Rules
-
-* One question per message
-* Prefer multiple-choice when possible
-* After each user answer:
-
-  * Update PRD immediately
-  * Move answered items from `Open Questions` → `Requirements`
-  * Update `Acceptance Criteria` with testable checkboxes
-  * Clarify `Out of Scope`
-
-### Question priority (recommended)
-
-1. **MVP scope boundary** (what is included/excluded)
-2. **Preference decisions** (after presenting concrete options)
-3. **Failure/edge behavior** (only for MVP-critical paths)
-4. **Success metrics & Acceptance Criteria** (what proves it works)
-
-### Preferred question format (multiple choice)
-
-```markdown
-For <topic>, which approach do you prefer?
-
-1. **Option A** — <what it means + trade-off>
-2. **Option B** — <what it means + trade-off>
-3. **Option C** — <what it means + trade-off>
-4. **Other** — describe your preference
-```
-
----
-
-## Step 7: Propose Approaches + Record Decisions (Complex tasks)
-
-After requirements are clear enough, propose 2–3 approaches (if not already done via research-first):
-
-```markdown
-Based on current information, here are 2–3 feasible approaches:
-
-**Approach A: <name>** (Recommended)
-
-* How:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
-
-**Approach B: <name>**
-
-* How:
-* Pros:
-* Cons:
+Ask the questions one at a time.
 
-Which direction do you prefer?
-```
+## Non-Negotiable Evidence Rule
 
-Record the outcome in PRD as an ADR-lite section:
+If a question can be answered by exploring the codebase, explore the codebase instead.
 
-```markdown
-## Decision (ADR-lite)
+This is mandatory. Before asking the user a question, first check whether the answer is already available in code, tests, configs, docs, existing specs, or task history.
 
-**Context**: Why this decision was needed
-**Decision**: Which approach was chosen
-**Consequences**: Trade-offs, risks, potential future improvements
-```
+Do not ask the user to confirm facts that the repository can answer. Ask only for product intent, preference, scope, risk tolerance, or decisions that remain ambiguous after inspection.
 
 ---
 
-## Step 8: Final Confirmation + Implementation Plan
-
-When open questions are resolved, confirm complete requirements with a structured summary:
-
-### Final confirmation format
-
-```markdown
-Here's my understanding of the complete requirements:
-
-**Goal**: <one sentence>
-
-**Requirements**:
-
-* ...
-* ...
-
-**Acceptance Criteria**:
+Use this skill during Phase 1 planning to turn the user's request into clear requirements and planning artifacts.
 
-* [ ] ...
-* [ ] ...
+## Preconditions
 
-**Definition of Done**:
+Use this skill only after task-creation consent has been given and the user is ready to enter Trellis planning.
 
-* ...
-
-**Out of Scope**:
-
-* ...
-
-**Technical Approach**:
-<brief summary + key decisions>
-
-**Implementation Plan (small PRs)**:
-
-* PR1: <scaffolding + tests + minimal plumbing>
-* PR2: <core behavior>
-* PR3: <edge cases + docs + cleanup>
-
-Does this look correct? If yes, I'll proceed with implementation.
-```
-
-### Subtask Decomposition (Complex Tasks)
-
-For complex tasks with multiple independent work items, create subtasks:
+If no task exists yet, create one:
 
 ```bash
-# Create child tasks
-CHILD1=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "Child task 1" --slug child1 --parent "$TASK_DIR")
-CHILD2=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "Child task 2" --slug child2 --parent "$TASK_DIR")
-
-# Or link existing tasks
-python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py add-subtask "$TASK_DIR" "$CHILD_DIR"
+TASK_DIR=$({{PYTHON_CMD}} ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create "<short task title>" --slug <slug>)
 ```
 
----
-
-## PRD Target Structure (final)
-
-`prd.md` should converge to:
-
-```markdown
-# <Task Title>
+Use a concise title from the user's request. Use a slug without a date prefix. `task.py create` adds the `MM-DD-` directory prefix automatically.
 
-## Goal
+`task.py create` creates the default `prd.md`. Update that file with the current understanding before asking follow-up questions.
 
-<why + what>
+## Planning Flow
 
-## Requirements
+1. Capture the user's request and initial known facts in `prd.md`.
+2. Inspect available evidence before asking questions:
+   - code, tests, fixtures, and configs
+   - README files, docs, existing specs, and domain notes
+   - related Trellis tasks, research files, and session history when present
+3. Separate what you found into:
+   - confirmed facts
+   - product intent still needed from the user
+   - scope or risk decisions still needed from the user
+   - likely out-of-scope items
+4. Ask the single highest-value remaining question.
+5. Include your recommended answer with the question.
+6. After each user answer, update `prd.md` before continuing.
+7. For complex tasks, create or update `design.md` and `implement.md` before implementation starts.
 
-* ...
+Do not invent a project-specific product/spec hierarchy. If the repository already has product, domain, or spec docs, use them. If it does not, proceed with the evidence that exists.
 
-## Acceptance Criteria
+## Question Rules
 
-* [ ] ...
+Ask only one question per message.
 
-## Definition of Done
+Each question must include:
 
-* ...
+- the decision needed
+- why the answer matters
+- your recommended answer
+- the trade-off if the user chooses differently
 
-## Technical Approach
+Do not ask process questions such as whether to search, inspect files, or continue brainstorming. Do the evidence work directly. Ask the user only when the remaining issue is a product decision, preference, scope boundary, or risk tolerance choice.
 
-<key design + decisions>
+## Artifact Rules
 
-## Decision (ADR-lite)
+`prd.md` records requirements and acceptance:
 
-Context / Decision / Consequences
+- goal and user value
+- confirmed facts
+- requirements
+- acceptance criteria
+- out of scope
+- open questions that still block planning
 
-## Out of Scope
+`design.md` records technical design for complex tasks:
 
-* ...
+- architecture and boundaries
+- data flow and contracts
+- compatibility and migration notes
+- important trade-offs
+- operational or rollback considerations
 
-## Technical Notes
+`implement.md` records execution planning for complex tasks:
 
-<constraints, references, files, research notes>
-```
+- ordered implementation checklist
+- validation commands
+- risky files or rollback points
+- follow-up checks before `task.py start`
 
----
+Lightweight tasks may have only `prd.md`. Complex tasks must have `prd.md`, `design.md`, and `implement.md` before `task.py start`.
 
-## Anti-Patterns (Hard Avoid)
+`implement.md` is not a replacement for `implement.jsonl`. Use JSONL files only for manifest-style spec and research references when the task needs them.
 
-* Asking user for code/context that can be derived from repo
-* Asking user to choose an approach before presenting concrete options
-* Meta questions about whether to research
-* Staying narrowly on the initial request without considering evolution/edges
-* Letting brainstorming drift without updating PRD
+## Quality Bar
 
----
-
-## Integration with Start Workflow
-
-After brainstorm completes (Step 8 confirmation approved), the flow continues to the Task Workflow's **Phase 2: Prepare for Implementation**:
-
-```text
-Brainstorm
-  Step 0: Create task directory + seed PRD
-  Step 1–7: Discover requirements, research, converge
-  Step 8: Final confirmation → user approves
-  ↓
-Task Workflow Phase 2 (Prepare for Implementation)
-  Code-Spec Depth Check (if applicable)
-  → Research codebase (based on confirmed PRD)
-  → Configure code-spec context (jsonl files)
-  → Activate task
-  ↓
-Task Workflow Phase 3 (Execute)
-  Implement → Check → Complete
-```
-
-The task directory and PRD already exist from brainstorm, so Phase 1 of the Task Workflow is skipped entirely.
-
----
+Before declaring planning ready:
 
-## Related Commands
+- `prd.md` contains testable acceptance criteria.
+- Repository-answerable questions have already been answered through inspection.
+- Remaining open questions are genuinely about user intent or scope.
+- Complex tasks have `design.md` and `implement.md`.
+- The user has reviewed the final planning artifacts or explicitly approved proceeding.
 
-| Command | When to Use |
-|---------|-------------|
-| `$start` | Entry point that triggers brainstorm |
-| `$finish-work` | After implementation is complete |
-| `$update-spec` | If new patterns emerge during work |
+Do not start implementation until the user approves or asks for implementation.

package/dist/templates/codex/skills/check/SKILL.md

@@ -3,28 +3,96 @@ name: check
 description: "Validates recently written code against project-specific development guidelines from .trellis/spec/. Identifies changed files via git diff, discovers applicable spec modules, runs lint and typecheck, and reports guideline violations. Use when code is written and needs quality verification, to catch context drift during long sessions, or before committing changes."
 ---
 
-Check if the code you just wrote follows the development guidelines.
+# Code Quality Check
 
-Execute these steps:
+Comprehensive quality verification for recently written code. Combines spec compliance, cross-layer safety, and pre-commit checks.
 
-1. **Identify changed files**:
-   ```bash
-   git diff --name-only HEAD
-   ```
+---
+
+## Step 1: Identify What Changed
+
+```bash
+git diff --name-only HEAD
+git status
+```
+
+## Step 2: Read Task Artifacts and Applicable Specs
+
+Read the current task artifacts in order:
+
+- `prd.md`
+- `design.md` if present
+- `implement.md` if present
+
+```bash
+python3 ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
+```
+
+For each changed package/layer, read the spec index and follow its **Quality Check** section:
+
+```bash
+cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
+```
+
+Read the specific guideline files referenced — the index is a pointer, not the goal.
+
+## Step 3: Run Project Checks
+
+Run the project's lint, type-check, and test commands. Fix any failures before proceeding.
+
+## Step 4: Review Against Checklist
+
+### Code Quality
+
+- [ ] Linter passes?
+- [ ] Type checker passes (if applicable)?
+- [ ] Tests pass?
+- [ ] No debug logging left in?
+- [ ] No suppressed warnings or type-safety bypasses?
 
-2. **Determine which spec modules apply** based on the changed file paths:
-   ```bash
-   python3 ./.trellis/scripts/get_context.py --mode packages
-   ```
+### Test Coverage
 
-3. **Read the spec index** for each relevant module:
-   ```bash
-   cat .trellis/spec/<package>/<layer>/index.md
-   ```
-   Follow the **"Quality Check"** section in the index.
+- [ ] New function → unit test added?
+- [ ] Bug fix → regression test added?
+- [ ] Changed behavior → existing tests updated?
 
-4. **Read the specific guideline files** referenced in the Quality Check section (e.g., `quality-guidelines.md`, `conventions.md`). The index is NOT the goal — it points you to the actual guideline files. Read those files and review your code against them.
+### Spec Sync
+
+- [ ] Does `.trellis/spec/` need updates? (new patterns, conventions, lessons learned)
+
+> "If I fixed a bug or discovered something non-obvious, should I document it so future me won't hit the same issue?" → If YES, update the relevant spec doc.
+
+## Step 5: Cross-Layer Dimensions (if applicable)
+
+Skip this step if your change is confined to a single layer.
+
+### A. Data Flow (changes touch 3+ layers)
+
+- [ ] Read flow traces correctly: Storage → Service → API → UI
+- [ ] Write flow traces correctly: UI → API → Service → Storage
+- [ ] Types/schemas correctly passed between layers?
+- [ ] Errors properly propagated to caller?
+
+### B. Code Reuse (modifying constants, creating utilities)
+
+- [ ] Searched for existing similar code before creating new?
+  ```bash
+  grep -r "pattern" src/
+  ```
+- [ ] If 2+ places define same value → extracted to shared constant?
+- [ ] After batch modification, all occurrences updated?
+
+### C. Import/Dependency (creating new files)
+
+- [ ] Correct import paths (relative vs absolute)?
+- [ ] No circular dependencies?
+
+### D. Same-Layer Consistency
+
+- [ ] Other places using the same concept are consistent?
+
+---
 
-5. **Run lint and typecheck** for the affected package.
+## Step 6: Report and Fix
 
-6. **Report any violations** and fix them if found.
+Report violations found and fix them directly. Re-run project checks after fixes.