@mindfoldhq/trellis 0.6.0-beta.8 → 0.6.0-beta.9

package/dist/templates/copilot/prompts/brainstorm.prompt.md

@@ -1,561 +1,111 @@
 ---
-description: "Trellis Copilot prompt: Brainstorm - Requirements Discovery (AI Coding Enhanced)"
+description: "Guide requirements discovery for a Trellis task after task-creation consent."
 ---
 
-# 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 {{CMD_REF: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>)
-```
-
-Use a slug without a date prefix. `task.py create` adds the `MM-DD-`
-directory prefix automatically.
-
-`task.py create` already created a default `prd.md`. Immediately update it with what you know:
-
-```markdown
-# brainstorm: <short goal>
-
-## Goal
-
-<one paragraph: what + why>
-
-## Background / Known Context
-
-* <facts from user message>
-* <facts discovered from repo/docs>
-
-## Assumptions (temporary)
-
-* <assumptions to validate>
-
-## Open Questions
-
-* <ONLY Blocking / Preference questions; keep list short>
-
-## Requirements
-
-* <start with what is known>
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-
-* [ ] <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>
-
-## Research References
-
-* <links to research/*.md or external references>
-```
-
-For complex tasks, also create/update:
-
-```markdown
-# design.md
-
-## Technical Design
-
-<boundaries, contracts, data flow, compatibility, tradeoffs>
-
-## Rollout / Rollback
-
-<operational notes if relevant>
-```
-
-```markdown
-# implement.md
-
-## Implementation Checklist
-
-- [ ] <ordered implementation step>
-
-## Validation
-
-- <lint/typecheck/test command>
-
-## Review Gates
-
-- <human or technical checkpoint before start/finish>
-```
-
----
-
-## 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 user-visible facts to `Background / Known Context`
-* Write technical findings to `research/*.md`, `design.md`, or `implement.md` as appropriate
-
----
-
-## 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
+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.
 
-### Delegate to `trellis-research` sub-agent (don't research inline)
-
-For each research topic, **spawn a `trellis-research` sub-agent via the Task tool** — don't do WebFetch / WebSearch / `gh api` inline in the main conversation.
-
-Why:
-- The sub-agent has its own context window → doesn't pollute brainstorm context with raw tool output
-- It persists findings to `{TASK_DIR}/research/<topic>.md` (the contract — see `workflow.md` Phase 1.2)
-- It returns only `{file path, one-line summary}` to the main agent
-- Independent topics can be **parallelized** — spawn multiple sub-agents in one tool call
-
-> **Codex exception**: on Codex CLI, do NOT dispatch `trellis-research` for research-first mode — do the research inline (WebFetch / WebSearch in the main session) and write findings to `{TASK_DIR}/research/<topic>.md` yourself. Reason: Codex `spawn_agent` runs sub-agents with `fork_turns="none"` (isolated context, no parent session inheritance), so the research sub-agent cannot resolve the active task path via `task.py current` and silently aborts without producing files. Inline research on Codex avoids this failure mode. The 3+ inline research calls limit (B rule in `workflow.md`) is relaxed for Codex specifically.
-
-Agent type: `trellis-research`
-Task description template: "Research <specific question>; persist findings to `{TASK_DIR}/research/<topic-slug>.md`."
-
-❌ Bad (what you must NOT do):
-```
-Main agent: WebFetch(url-A) → WebFetch(url-B) → Bash(gh api ...)
-          → WebSearch(q1) → WebSearch(q2) → ... (10+ inline calls)
-          → Write(research/topic.md)
-```
-→ Pollutes main context with raw HTML/JSON, burns tokens.
-
-✅ Good:
-```
-Main agent: Task(subagent_type="trellis-research",
-                 prompt="Research topic A; persist to research/topic-a.md")
-          + Task(subagent_type="trellis-research",
-                 prompt="Research topic B; persist to research/topic-b.md")
-          + Task(subagent_type="trellis-research",
-                 prompt="Research topic C; persist to research/topic-c.md")
-→ Reads research/topic-{a,b,c}.md after they finish.
-```
-
-### Research steps (to pass into each sub-agent prompt)
-
-Each `trellis-research` sub-agent should:
-
-1. Identify 2–4 comparable tools/patterns for its topic
-2. Summarize common conventions and why they exist
-3. Map conventions onto our repo constraints
-4. Write findings to `{TASK_DIR}/research/<topic>.md`
-
-Main agent then reads the persisted files and produces **2–3 feasible approaches** in PRD.
-
-### Research output format (PRD)
-
-The PRD itself should only reference the persisted research files, not duplicate their content. Add a `## Research References` section pointing at `research/*.md`.
-
-Optionally, add a convergence section with feasible approaches derived from the research:
-
-```markdown
-## Research References
-
-* [`research/<topic-a>.md`](research/<topic-a>.md) — <one-line takeaway>
-* [`research/<topic-b>.md`](research/<topic-b>.md) — <one-line takeaway>
-
-## 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 + Planning Artifacts
-
-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**:
-
-* [ ] ...
-* [ ] ...
-
-**Definition of Done**:
-
-* ...
+Use this skill during Phase 1 planning to turn the user's request into clear requirements and planning artifacts.
 
-**Out of Scope**:
+## Preconditions
 
-* ...
+Use this skill only after task-creation consent has been given and the user is ready to enter Trellis planning.
 
-**Artifact status**:
-
-* prd.md: <ready / needs update>
-* design.md: <not needed for lightweight / ready / missing>
-* implement.md: <not needed for lightweight / ready / missing>
-
-Does this look correct? If yes, the next step is planning review before `task.py start`.
-```
-
-### 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>)
 ```
 
----
+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.
 
-## PRD Target Structure (final)
+`task.py create` creates the default `prd.md`. Update that file with the current understanding before asking follow-up questions.
 
-`prd.md` should converge to:
+## Planning Flow
 
-```markdown
-# <Task Title>
+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.
 
-## Goal
+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.
 
-<why + what>
+## Question Rules
 
-## Requirements
+Ask only one question per message.
 
-* ...
+Each question must include:
 
-## Acceptance Criteria
+- the decision needed
+- why the answer matters
+- your recommended answer
+- the trade-off if the user chooses differently
 
-* [ ] ...
+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.
 
-## Out of Scope
+## Artifact Rules
 
-* ...
+`prd.md` records requirements and acceptance:
 
-## Research References
+- goal and user value
+- confirmed facts
+- requirements
+- acceptance criteria
+- out of scope
+- open questions that still block planning
 
-* <links to research/*.md or external references>
-```
+`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
 
-## Anti-Patterns (Hard Avoid)
+`implement.md` records execution planning for complex tasks:
 
-* 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
+- 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`.
 
-## Integration with Start Workflow
-
-After brainstorm completes (Step 8 confirmation approved), the flow continues to the Task Workflow planning review gate:
-
-```text
-Brainstorm
-  Step 0: Create task directory + update PRD
-  Step 1–7: Discover requirements, research, converge
-  Step 8: Final confirmation → user approves planning artifacts
-  ↓
-Task Workflow Phase 1 (Plan)
-  Lightweight task → PRD-only may be enough
-  Complex task → design.md + implement.md required
-  Sub-agent platforms → curate implement.jsonl / check.jsonl manifests
-  → Review gate → task.py start
-  ↓
-Task Workflow Phase 2 (Execute)
-  Implement → Check → Complete
-```
+`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.
 
-The task directory and PRD already exist from brainstorm, but Phase 1 is not skipped; it owns artifact review and the `task.py start` gate.
+## Quality Bar
 
----
+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 |
-|---------|-------------|
-| `{{CMD_REF:start}}` | Entry point that triggers brainstorm |
-| `{{CMD_REF:finish-work}}` | After implementation is complete |
-| `{{CMD_REF:update-spec}}` | If new patterns emerge during work |
+Do not start implementation until the user approves or asks for implementation.

package/dist/templates/cursor/hooks.json

@@ -11,13 +11,13 @@
     "sessionStart": [
       {
         "command": "{{PYTHON_CMD}} .cursor/hooks/session-start.py",
-        "timeout": 10
+        "timeout": 30
       }
     ],
     "beforeSubmitPrompt": [
       {
         "command": "{{PYTHON_CMD}} .cursor/hooks/inject-workflow-state.py",
-        "timeout": 5
+        "timeout": 15
       }
     ],
     "beforeShellExecution": [

package/dist/templates/droid/settings.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
           {
             "type": "command",
             "command": "{{PYTHON_CMD}} .factory/hooks/session-start.py",
-            "timeout": 10
+            "timeout": 30
           }
         ]
       },
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
           {
             "type": "command",
             "command": "{{PYTHON_CMD}} .factory/hooks/session-start.py",
-            "timeout": 10
+            "timeout": 30
           }
         ]
       },
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
           {
             "type": "command",
             "command": "{{PYTHON_CMD}} .factory/hooks/session-start.py",
-            "timeout": 10
+            "timeout": 30
           }
         ]
       }
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
           {
             "type": "command",
             "command": "{{PYTHON_CMD}} .factory/hooks/inject-workflow-state.py",
-            "timeout": 5
+            "timeout": 15
           }
         ]
       }