@oyolincc/create 0.0.0-dev-20260513110237 → 0.0.0-dev-20260918103756

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+name: improve-codebase-architecture
+description: Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Improve Codebase Architecture
+
+Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
+
+This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
+
+- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."
+- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Explore
+
+**Scope before you scan — YAGNI.** Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so put extra weight on the parts of the codebase that have recently changed. Decide *where* to look before you look:
+
+- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.
+- Otherwise, walk back a good stretch of the commit history (`git log --oneline`) to find the codebase's hot spots — the files and areas that keep coming up — and let those paths pull your attention first. If the changes are scattered with no clear hot spot, widen the net.
+
+Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
+
+Then spawn a sub-agent to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
+
+- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
+- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
+- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)?
+- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
+- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
+
+Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
+
+### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report
+
+Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from `$TMPDIR`, falling back to `/tmp` (or `%TEMP%` on Windows), and write to `<tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html` so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — `xdg-open <path>` on Linux, `open <path>` on macOS, `start <path>` on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.
+
+The report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.
+
+For each candidate, render a card with:
+
+- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
+- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
+- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
+- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
+- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
+- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge
+
+End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
+
+**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the `/codebase-design` vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
+
+**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
+
+See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
+
+Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
+
+### 3. Grilling loop
+
+Once the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the decision tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
+
+Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — run the `/domain-modeling` skill to keep the domain model current as you go:
+
+- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md`. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
+- **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
+- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones.
+- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Run the `/codebase-design` skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Improve Codebase Architecture"
+  short_description: "Find and grill architecture improvements"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/prototype/LOGIC.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# Logic Prototype
+
+A single, self-contained HTML file — a **shareable demo** — that lets anyone drive a state model by clicking buttons. Use this when the question is about **business logic, state transitions, or data shape** — the kind of thing that looks reasonable on paper but only feels wrong once you push it through real cases.
+
+Because it's one file with nothing to install, you can hand it to a non-developer — a designer, a PM, a domain expert — and let them feel the model for themselves. So it speaks their language, not the code's.
+
+## When this is the right shape
+
+- "I'm not sure if this state machine handles the edge case where X then Y."
+- "Does this data model actually let me represent the case where..."
+- "I want to feel out what the API should look like before writing it."
+- Anything where someone wants to **press buttons and watch state change**.
+
+If the question is "what should this look like" — wrong branch. Use [UI.md](UI.md).
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. State the question
+
+Before writing code, write down what state model and what question you're prototyping. One paragraph, at the top of the demo (in a visible intro, not just a comment). A logic prototype that answers the wrong question is pure waste — make the question explicit so it can be checked later, whether the user is watching now or returning to it AFK.
+
+### 2. Isolate the logic in a portable module
+
+Put the actual logic — the bit that's answering the question — in a single `<script>` block written as a small, pure module that could be lifted out and dropped into the real codebase later. The page around it is throwaway; this module isn't.
+
+The right shape depends on the question:
+
+- **A pure reducer** — `(state, action) => state`. Good when actions are discrete events and state is a single value.
+- **A state machine** — explicit states and transitions. Good when "which actions are even legal right now" is part of the question.
+- **A small set of pure functions** over a plain data type. Good when there's no implicit current state — just transformations.
+- **A class or module with a clear method surface** when the logic genuinely owns ongoing internal state.
+
+Pick whichever shape best fits the question being asked, *not* whichever is easiest to wire to a page. Keep it pure: no DOM, no `document`, no button handlers reaching inside it. The page calls into it; nothing flows the other direction. This is what makes the prototype useful past its own lifetime: once the question's answered, the validated reducer / machine / function set lifts into the real module on its own.
+
+### 3. Build the shareable HTML file
+
+One file, plain HTML/CSS/JS — no framework, no bundler, no server, everything inline so it opens by double-click and survives being emailed around. Anyone should be able to run it by opening it.
+
+Write it for a non-developer. Every label is in **domain language**, not code — buttons and state read like the business, not the reducer. Explain in plain words what's happening.
+
+Lay it out with a clean hierarchy, top to bottom:
+
+1. **Title and one-line explanation** of what this demo lets you explore (the question from step 1).
+2. **Current state** — the full relevant state, rendered as a readable panel (labelled fields, not a raw JSON dump), re-rendered after every click so the change is visible. Where it helps a non-developer follow, call out what just changed.
+3. **Free-play buttons** — one button per action, always available, so anyone can poke at the model in any order. Each click dispatches its action and re-renders the state.
+4. **Guided walkthroughs** — a set of **scenarios**, one per tab. Each tab holds a short plain-language description of the scenario — the situation it sets up and what to watch for — and underneath it, the ordered **buttons to press** for that scenario. Each step is a real button: clicking it performs that action and moves to the next step. Starting a walkthrough resets to a known initial state so the scenario runs the same way every time.
+
+Choose scenarios that demonstrate the awkward cases — the happy path, a tricky edge case, an attempt at something that should be illegal — the ones hard to reason about on paper.
+
+Keep it beautiful but restrained: clean typography, generous spacing, one accent colour. No animations, no gimmicks — nothing that competes with the state and the buttons.
+
+### 4. Hand it over
+
+Send them the file, or open it for them. They'll click through the walkthroughs and free-play whenever they get to it; the interesting moments are when they say "wait, that shouldn't be possible" or "huh, I assumed X would be different" — those are the bugs in the _idea_, which is the whole point. If they want new actions or a new scenario, add them. Prototypes evolve.
+
+### 5. Capture the answer and the prototype
+
+Once the prototype has answered its question, capture the answer, then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. The logic-specific mapping: the validated reducer / machine / function set lifts into the real module (the decision, absorbed); the HTML shell rides along to the throwaway branch that keeps the prototype as a primary source — and being one self-contained file, it stays trivially re-runnable there.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- **Don't add tests.** A prototype that needs tests is no longer a prototype.
+- **Don't wire it to the real database.** Use in-memory state unless the question is specifically about persistence.
+- **Don't generalise.** No "what if we wanted to support X later." The prototype answers one question.
+- **Don't blur the logic and the page together.** If the pure module references the DOM, `document`, or button handlers, it's no longer liftable. Keep the page as a thin shell over a pure module.
+- **Don't reach for a framework, bundler, or server.** One file the recipient double-clicks; a React app or a dev server defeats "shareable".
+- **Don't ship the HTML shell into production.** The page is optimised for being clicked through by hand. The logic module behind it is the bit worth keeping.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/prototype/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+name: prototype
+description: Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
+---
+
+# Prototype
+
+A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides the shape.
+
+## Pick a branch
+
+Identify which question is being answered — from the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:
+
+- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a single shareable HTML file — free-play buttons plus tabbed guided walkthroughs — that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper, and that a non-developer can drive.
+- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.
+
+The two branches produce very different artifacts — getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.
+
+## Rules that apply to both
+
+1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious — but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.
+2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner — `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it.
+3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE — wipe me" name.
+4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.
+5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.
+6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too — the verdict and the question it settled — in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/prototype/UI.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# UI Prototype
+
+Generate **several radically different UI variations** on a single route, switchable from a floating bottom bar. The user flips between variants in the browser, picks one (or steals bits from each), then throws the rest away.
+
+If the question is about logic/state rather than what something looks like — wrong branch. Use [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md).
+
+## When this is the right shape
+
+- "What should this page look like?"
+- "I want to see a few options for this dashboard before committing."
+- "Try a different layout for the settings screen."
+- Any time the user would otherwise spend a day picking between three vague mockups in their head.
+
+## Two sub-shapes — strongly prefer sub-shape A
+
+A UI prototype is much easier to judge when it's **butting up against the rest of the app** — real header, real sidebar, real data, real density. A throwaway route on its own is a vacuum: every variant looks fine in isolation. Default to sub-shape A whenever there's a plausible existing page to host the variants. Only reach for sub-shape B if the prototype genuinely has no nearby home.
+
+### Sub-shape A — adjustment to an existing page (preferred)
+
+The route already exists. Variants are rendered **on the same route**, gated by a `?variant=` URL search param. The existing data fetching, params, and auth all stay — only the rendering swaps. This is the default; pick it unless there's a specific reason not to.
+
+If the prototype is for something that doesn't yet have a page but *would naturally live inside one* (a new section of the dashboard, a new card on the settings screen, a new step in an existing flow) — that's still sub-shape A. Mount the variants inside the host page.
+
+### Sub-shape B — a new page (last resort)
+
+Only use this when the thing being prototyped genuinely has no existing page to live inside — e.g. an entirely new top-level surface, or a flow that can't be embedded anywhere sensible.
+
+Create a **throwaway route** following whatever routing convention the project already uses — don't invent a new top-level structure. Name it so it's obviously a prototype (e.g. include the word `prototype` in the path or filename). Same `?variant=` pattern.
+
+Before committing to sub-shape B, sanity-check: is there really no existing page this could be embedded in? An empty route hides design problems that a populated one would expose.
+
+In both sub-shapes the floating bottom bar is identical.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. State the question and pick N
+
+Default to **3 variants**. More than 5 stops being radically different and starts being noise — cap there.
+
+Write down the plan in one line, in the prototype's location or a top-of-file comment:
+
+> "Three variants of the settings page, switchable via `?variant=`, on the existing `/settings` route."
+
+This works whether the user is here to push back or not.
+
+### 2. Generate radically different variants
+
+Draft each variant. Hold each one to:
+
+- The page's purpose and the data it has access to.
+- The project's component library / styling system (TailwindCSS, shadcn, MUI, plain CSS, whatever).
+- A clear exported component name, e.g. `VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`.
+
+Variants must be **structurally different** — different layout, different information hierarchy, different primary affordance, not just different colours. Three slightly-tweaked card grids isn't a UI prototype, it's wallpaper. If two drafts come out too similar, redo one with explicit "do not use a card grid" guidance.
+
+### 3. Wire them together
+
+Create a single switcher component on the route:
+
+```tsx
+// pseudo-code — adapt to the project's framework
+const variant = searchParams.get('variant') ?? 'A';
+return (
+  <>
+    {variant === 'A' && <VariantA {...data} />}
+    {variant === 'B' && <VariantB {...data} />}
+    {variant === 'C' && <VariantC {...data} />}
+    <PrototypeSwitcher variants={['A','B','C']} current={variant} />
+  </>
+);
+```
+
+For sub-shape A (existing page): keep all the existing data fetching above the switcher; only the rendered subtree changes per variant.
+
+For sub-shape B (new page): the throwaway route under `/prototype/<name>` mounts the same switcher.
+
+### 4. Build the floating switcher
+
+A small fixed-position bar at the bottom-centre of the screen with three pieces:
+
+- **Left arrow** — cycles to the previous variant (wraps around).
+- **Variant label** — shows the current variant key and, if the variant exports a name, that name too. e.g. `B — Sidebar layout`.
+- **Right arrow** — cycles forward (wraps around).
+
+Behaviour:
+
+- Clicking an arrow updates the URL search param (use the framework's router — `router.replace` on Next, `navigate` on React Router, etc) so the variant is shareable and reload-stable.
+- Keyboard: `←` and `→` arrow keys also cycle. Don't intercept arrow keys when an `<input>`, `<textarea>`, or `[contenteditable]` is focused.
+- Visually distinct from the page (e.g. high-contrast pill, subtle shadow) so it's obviously not part of the design being evaluated.
+- Hidden in production builds — gate on `process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production'` or an equivalent check, so a stray prototype merge can't ship the bar to users.
+
+Put the switcher in a single shared component so both sub-shapes can reuse it. Locate it wherever shared UI lives in the project.
+
+### 5. Hand it over
+
+Surface the URL (and the `?variant=` keys). The user will flip through whenever they get to it. The interesting feedback is usually **"I want the header from B with the sidebar from C"** — that's the actual design they want.
+
+### 6. Capture the answer and clean up
+
+Once a variant has won, capture the answer — which variant and why — then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. Fold the winner into the real code and move the rest onto the throwaway branch, not into main:
+
+- **Sub-shape A** — fold the winner into the existing page; drop the losing variants and the switcher from main.
+- **Sub-shape B** — promote the winning variant to a real route; drop the throwaway route and the switcher from main.
+
+The full set of variants is the primary source, so it lands on the throwaway branch, not the bin — variant components and the switcher left in the main branch rot fast and confuse the next reader.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- **Variants that differ only in colour or copy.** That's a tweak, not a prototype. Real variants disagree about structure.
+- **Sharing too much code between variants.** A shared `<Header>` is fine; a shared `<Layout>` defeats the point. Each variant should be free to throw out the layout.
+- **Wiring variants to real mutations.** Read-only prototypes are fine. If a variant needs to mutate, point it at a stub — the question is "what should this look like", not "does the backend work".
+- **Promoting the prototype directly to production.** The variant code was written under prototype constraints (no tests, minimal error handling). Rewrite it properly when you fold it in.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/prototype/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Prototype"
+  short_description: "Prototype to answer a design question"

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/research/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+name: research
+description: Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.
+---
+
+Spin up a **background agent** to do the research, so you keep working while it reads.
+
+Its job:
+
+1. Investigate the question against **primary sources** — official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs — not a secondary write-up of them. Follow every claim back to the source that owns it.
+2. Write the findings to a single Markdown file, citing each claim's source.
+3. Save it where the repo already keeps such notes; match the existing convention, and if there is none, put it somewhere sensible and say where.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/research/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Research"
+  short_description: "Research from high-trust sources"

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/resolving-merge-conflicts/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+name: resolving-merge-conflicts
+description: "Use when you need to resolve an in-progress git merge/rebase conflict."
+---
+
+1. **See the current state** of the merge/rebase. Check git history, and the conflicting files.
+
+2. **Find the primary sources** for each conflict. Understand deeply why each change was made, and what the original intent was. Read the commit messages, check the PRs, check original issues/tickets.
+
+3. **Resolve each hunk.** Preserve both intents where possible. Where incompatible, pick the one matching the merge's stated goal and note the trade-off. Do **not** invent new behaviour. Always resolve; never `--abort`.
+
+4. Discover the project's **automated checks** and run them — typically typecheck, then tests, then format. Fix anything the merge broke.
+
+5. **Finish the merge/rebase.** Stage everything and commit. If rebasing, continue the rebase process until all commits are rebased.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/resolving-merge-conflicts/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Resolving Merge Conflicts"
+  short_description: "Resolve merge and rebase conflicts"

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/scoped-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+---
+name: scoped-code-review
+description: 针对特定、明确的范围（文件、函数、模块、PR 或 diff）执行多维度的深度代码审查。评估正确性、规范性、精简度（防止过度工程）以及架构适配性。适用于用户提出“审查这段代码”、“审计这个模块”、“检查这个 PR”或“帮我审查代码”等明确需求。若范围不明确，请勿使用。
+license: MIT
+compatibility: 需要文件读取和搜索 (grep) 工具
+metadata:
+  version: "1.1.0"
+  type: "code-analysis"
+---
+
+# 定向代码审查 (Scoped Code Review)
+
+一个结构化的 Skill，用于对用户确认的特定范围进行代码审查。该审查结合了**局部微观视角**（单行/函数/模块级质量）与**宏观视角**（审查的代码如何融入更大的架构），并特别强调捕捉低价值的复杂性——即那些技术上可以“运行”但增加了不必要的间接性、冗余抽象或维护负担的代码。
+
+## 🛑 护栏：确认审查范围（强制门控）
+
+**在审查范围明确之前，绝对不要开始任何分析或工具调用。**
+
+只有当用户指定或你可以通过上下文高度置信地推断出以下一项或多项时，才视为范围已确认：
+
+- 具体的文件路径、目录或函数/类/模块名称。
+- 具体的 git diff、PR 或 commit 散列值。
+- 当前上下文中唯一存在的、用户刚刚粘贴/上传的单个代码块或文件。
+
+**范围不明确时的操作**：如果用户仅说“帮我审查代码”而没有给出明确目标，**立即停止**。使用 `ask_user_input_v0` 工具（如果可用）或直接询问：“请问您希望我审查哪些具体的文件、文件夹或 diff 变更？”
+
+_如果范围明确，请简要复述（例如：“正在审查 `src/utils/payment.ts` ...”）并进入步骤 1。_
+
+---
+
+## 执行工作流
+
+### 步骤 1：收集上下文（工具调用）
+
+不要盲目地只看片段。使用文件读取和搜索工具来收集必要的上下文：
+
+1. **完整阅读目标**：完整阅读目标文件或 diff 内容。
+2. **情境化分析**：使用 `grep` 或文件搜索工具，快速浏览兄弟文件或调用方。理解项目已有的约定（命名风格、错误处理、分层设计）。
+3. **检查规范契约**：查看项目中的 lint 配置（如 `eslint/ruff`）、`README.md` 或架构文档，建立对项目隐式风格契约的认知。
+   _限制条件：不要过度获取（over-fetch）。只拉取对本次局部审查切实相关的上下文。_
+
+### 步骤 2：局部微观审查（分析维度）
+
+仔细评估目标范围内的代码，重点关注以下三个维度，并在过程中做好记录：
+
+#### 2.1 健全性（正确性与鲁棒性）
+
+- **逻辑与性能**：错误的条件判断、边界值错误、不必要的 O(n²) 算法、N+1 查询、未处理的边缘情况。
+- **安全风险**：注入漏洞、未过滤的输入、硬编码敏感信息、反序列化风险、缺少鉴权。
+- **鲁棒性**：未捕获的异常/错误路径、静默失败、在高并发/并发访问时缺失重试或超时机制、资源泄露（未关闭的文件或连接）。
+
+#### 2.2 规范与约定
+
+- **职责边界**：文件或函数是否承担了过多不相关的职责？一个简单的事情是否被无谓地拆分到了多个文件中？
+- **风格一致性**：即使没有 Linter 强制约束，代码是否符合你在步骤 1 中观察到的项目既定风格（命名、错误处理惯例、注释风格等）？
+- **最佳实践**：不要存在死代码、冗余注释或未关联工单的 `TODO`。
+
+#### 2.3 精简度（最高优先级维度）
+
+核心提问：**在不损失实际功能的前提下，这段代码能否写得更简单？** 重点搜寻以下倾向：
+
+- **冗余变量声明**：引入了一个中间变量，但实际上该变量可以直接内联或用原始表达式代替；或多个变量持有几乎相同的值却无实际状态流转。
+- **低价值的过度封装**：仅被使用一次的 1-2 行极短函数。为了所谓的“整洁”而提取，却增加了阅读时的跳转成本，且不具备复用性和可测试性。
+- **中继/传递函数**：只负责调用另一个函数、不带任何校验、转换或分支处理的函数，平白拉长了调用链。
+- **重复造轮子**：手写了标准库、已引入第三方库或项目中已有的工具函数可以直接实现的逻辑。
+
+### 步骤 3：宏观架构适配审查
+
+跳出代码行级别的细节，站在更高维度评估：
+
+- **职责越界**：代码是否放错了层级（例如在 UI/视图层处理业务逻辑，在控制器中直接读写数据库）？
+- **抽象层级**：该抽象是否与实际使用场景相匹配？（是否存在为单个调用者设计的过度泛化，或多处重复的手工实现？）
+- **模式冲突**：它是否引入了与项目中现有同类模式/依赖相冲突的新方案？
+
+### 步骤 4：交付审查发现
+
+生成结构化的 Markdown 报告。**关键约束：绝对不要输出社交寒暄或前置废话（例如“好的，这是审查结果”）。请直接输出以下格式。**
+保持简洁、易读且极具针对性。按影响严重程度排序，而非行号。
+
+```markdown
+## 代码审查报告：<Confirmed Scope>
+
+### 🎯 概述
+
+<1-3 句话：总体结论以及最需要修改的核心问题，若无则写明总体评价良好。>
+
+### 🔴 正确性与鲁棒性
+
+_(若无此维度问题，请直接删除此标题，下同)_
+
+- `[严重程度]` **<问题发现>** — `path/to/file:line` — <问题危害> — <具体修改建议>
+
+### 🟡 规范与约定
+
+- **<问题发现>** — <具体修改建议>
+
+### 🟢 精简度（简化建议）
+
+- **<问题发现>** — 代替方案：`<具体的代码重构/内联建议>`
+
+### 🏛️ 宏观架构适配性
+
+- <评估这部分代码在系统中的分量与合理性，是否合适？>
+
+### ✅ 亮点/优秀实践
+
+- <1-2 条指出代码中写得好的地方，保持客观和鼓励，避免纯负面反馈>
+
+### 📋 推荐修改清单（按优先级排序）
+
+1. <最紧急/最重要的修复项>
+2. <次要修复项/优化项>
+```

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+---
+name: setup-matt-pocock-skills
+description: Configure this repo for the engineering skills — set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Setup Matt Pocock's Skills
+
+Scaffold the per-repo configuration that the engineering skills assume:
+
+- **Issue tracker** — where issues live (GitHub by default; local markdown is also supported out of the box)
+- **Triage labels** — the strings used for the five canonical triage roles
+- **Domain docs** — where `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs live, and the consumer rules for reading them
+
+This is a prompt-driven skill, not a deterministic script. Explore, present what you found, confirm with the user, then write.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Explore
+
+Look at the current repo to understand its starting state. Read whatever exists; don't assume:
+
+- `git remote -v` and `.git/config` — is this a GitHub repo? Which one?
+- `AGENTS.md` and `CLAUDE.md` at the repo root — does either exist? Is there already an `## Agent skills` section in either?
+- `CONTEXT.md` and `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root
+- `docs/adr/` and any `src/*/docs/adr/` directories
+- `docs/agents/` — does this skill's prior output already exist?
+- `.scratch/` — sign that a local-markdown issue tracker convention is already in use
+- Is the `triage` skill installed? (a `triage` skill folder alongside this one, or `triage` in your available skills.) This decides whether Section B runs at all.
+- Monorepo signals — a `pnpm-workspace.yaml`, a `workspaces` field in `package.json`, or a populated `packages/*` with its own `src/`. Present only in a genuinely large multi-package repo; their absence means single-context, which is almost every repo.
+
+### 2. Present findings and ask
+
+Summarise what's present and what's missing. Then take the sections in order — one section, one answer, then the next.
+
+Lead each section with the recommended answer so the user can accept it in a word. Give a one-line explainer only when the choice genuinely branches; skip the section entirely when exploration already settled it (Section B when `triage` isn't installed, Section C when there's no monorepo).
+
+**Section A — Issue tracker.**
+
+> Explainer: The "issue tracker" is where issues live for this repo. Skills like `to-tickets`, `triage`, and `to-spec` read from and write to it — they need to know whether to call `gh issue create`, write a markdown file under `.scratch/`, or follow some other workflow you describe. Pick the place you actually track work for this repo.
+
+Default posture: these skills were designed for GitHub. If a `git remote` points at GitHub, propose that. If a `git remote` points at GitLab (`gitlab.com` or a self-hosted host), propose GitLab. Otherwise (or if the user prefers), offer:
+
+- **GitHub** — issues live in the repo's GitHub Issues (uses the `gh` CLI)
+- **GitLab** — issues live in the repo's GitLab Issues (uses the [`glab`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cli) CLI)
+- **Local markdown** — issues live as files under `.scratch/<feature>/` in this repo (good for solo projects or repos without a remote)
+- **Other** (Jira, Linear, etc.) — ask the user to describe the workflow in one paragraph; the skill will record it as freeform prose
+
+Record the choice in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. The GitHub and GitLab templates carry a "PRs as a request surface" flag, defaulted **off** — leave it off and don't raise it; a user who wants external PRs in the triage queue can flip the flag in the file later.
+
+**Section B — Triage label vocabulary.** Skip this section entirely if the `triage` skill isn't installed (exploration told you) — an uninstalled skill needs no labels.
+
+If it is installed, ask exactly one question:
+
+> Do you want to keep the default triage labels? (recommended: **yes**)
+
+The defaults are the five canonical roles, each label string equal to its name: `needs-triage`, `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, `wontfix`. On **yes**, write them as-is. Only if the user says no — usually because their tracker already uses other names (e.g. `bug:triage` for `needs-triage`) — collect the overrides so `triage` applies existing labels instead of creating duplicates.
+
+**Section C — Domain docs.** Default to **single-context** — one `CONTEXT.md` + `docs/adr/` at the repo root. This fits almost every repo; write it without asking.
+
+Offer **multi-context** — a root `CONTEXT-MAP.md` pointing to per-context `CONTEXT.md` files — only when exploration found monorepo signals. Then confirm which layout they want.
+
+### 3. Confirm and edit
+
+Show the user a draft of:
+
+- The `## Agent skills` block to add to whichever of `CLAUDE.md` / `AGENTS.md` is being edited (see step 4 for selection rules)
+- The contents of `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`, `docs/agents/domain.md`, and `docs/agents/triage-labels.md` (the last only when `triage` is installed)
+
+Let them edit before writing.
+
+### 4. Write
+
+**Pick the file to edit:**
+
+- If `CLAUDE.md` exists, edit it.
+- Else if `AGENTS.md` exists, edit it.
+- If neither exists, ask the user which one to create — don't pick for them.
+
+Never create `AGENTS.md` when `CLAUDE.md` already exists (or vice versa) — always edit the one that's already there.
+
+If an `## Agent skills` block already exists in the chosen file, update its contents in-place rather than appending a duplicate. Don't overwrite user edits to the surrounding sections.
+
+The block:
+
+```markdown
+## Agent skills
+
+### Issue tracker
+
+[one-line summary of where issues are tracked]. See `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
+
+### Triage labels
+
+[one-line summary of the label vocabulary]. See `docs/agents/triage-labels.md`.
+
+### Domain docs
+
+[one-line summary of layout — "single-context" or "multi-context"]. See `docs/agents/domain.md`.
+```
+
+Include the `### Triage labels` sub-block, and write `docs/agents/triage-labels.md`, only when `triage` is installed and Section B ran. When it isn't, both are omitted.
+
+Then write the docs files using the seed templates in this skill folder as a starting point:
+
+- [issue-tracker-github.md](./issue-tracker-github.md) — GitHub issue tracker
+- [issue-tracker-gitlab.md](./issue-tracker-gitlab.md) — GitLab issue tracker
+- [issue-tracker-local.md](./issue-tracker-local.md) — local-markdown issue tracker
+- [triage-labels.md](./triage-labels.md) — label mapping (only if `triage` is installed)
+- [domain.md](./domain.md) — domain doc consumer rules + layout
+
+For "other" issue trackers, write `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` from scratch using the user's description.
+
+### 5. Done
+
+Tell the user the setup is complete and which engineering skills will now read from these files. Mention they can edit `docs/agents/*.md` directly later — re-running this skill is only necessary if they want to switch issue trackers or restart from scratch.

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Setup Matt Pocock Skills"
+  short_description: "Configure a repo for the skills"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/templates/monorepo/.agents/skills/setup-matt-pocock-skills/domain.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Domain Docs
+
+How the engineering skills should consume this repo's domain documentation when exploring the codebase.
+
+## Before exploring, read these
+
+- **`CONTEXT.md`** at the repo root, or
+- **`CONTEXT-MAP.md`** at the repo root if it exists — it points at one `CONTEXT.md` per context. Read each one relevant to the topic.
+- **`docs/adr/`** — read ADRs that touch the area you're about to work in. In multi-context repos, also check `src/<context>/docs/adr/` for context-scoped decisions.
+
+If any of these files don't exist, **proceed silently**. Don't flag their absence; don't suggest creating them upfront. The `/domain-modeling` skill (reached via `/grill-with-docs` and `/improve-codebase-architecture`) creates them lazily when terms or decisions actually get resolved.
+
+## File structure
+
+Single-context repo (most repos):
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT.md
+├── docs/adr/
+│   ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
+│   └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
+└── src/
+```
+
+Multi-context repo (presence of `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the root):
+
+```
+/
+├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
+├── docs/adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
+└── src/
+    ├── ordering/
+    │   ├── CONTEXT.md
+    │   └── docs/adr/                  ← context-specific decisions
+    └── billing/
+        ├── CONTEXT.md
+        └── docs/adr/
+```
+
+## Use the glossary's vocabulary
+
+When your output names a domain concept (in an issue title, a refactor proposal, a hypothesis, a test name), use the term as defined in `CONTEXT.md`. Don't drift to synonyms the glossary explicitly avoids.
+
+If the concept you need isn't in the glossary yet, that's a signal — either you're inventing language the project doesn't use (reconsider) or there's a real gap (note it for `/domain-modeling`).
+
+## Flag ADR conflicts
+
+If your output contradicts an existing ADR, surface it explicitly rather than silently overriding:
+
+> _Contradicts ADR-0007 (event-sourced orders) — but worth reopening because…_