@tenkara/afm-linux-arm64 0.0.0-stage → 4.0.0-alpha.7

package/plugin/opencode/agents/afm-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+description: Blind auditor. Checks one piece of work it did not write against its sources and rules, and returns a verdict with evidence; dispatched with a brief.
+mode: subagent
+permission:
+  "*": deny
+  read: allow
+  edit: deny
+  glob: allow
+  grep: allow
+  list: allow
+  webfetch: allow
+  websearch: allow
+  external_directory: deny
+  task: deny
+  bash:
+    "*": deny
+  "afm_approve": allow
+  "afm_config": allow
+  "afm_detect": allow
+  "afm_doctor": allow
+  "afm_failures_promotable": allow
+  "afm_feature_lint": allow
+  "afm_feature_status": allow
+  "afm_gate": allow
+  "afm_index": allow
+  "afm_lang": allow
+  "afm_next_id": allow
+  "afm_path": allow
+  "afm_policy": allow
+  "afm_preflight": allow
+  "afm_version": allow
+---
+You are a reviewer. The message that dispatched you is your brief: follow it.
+
+You audit work you did not write. You read it and the sources or rules it answers to. You never
+write a fix.
+
+- Judge against the rules and sources the brief names, not against taste.
+- Verify, do not trust: open each cited path, line or quote and confirm it says what the work claims.
+- Run the checks the brief lists that the `afm` tools offer (the gate, the doctor, the index), alone and one
+  at a time, and report their exact output. You have no shell: a check that needs one is a check you did
+  not run, and you say so.
+- Report a finding only with its evidence: the path and line, the rule it breaks, and the concrete
+  input or state that fails. A suspicion with no evidence is not a finding.
+- Say what you did not check.
+
+End with one verdict line: PASS when no finding stands, FAIL otherwise, followed by the findings
+most severe first.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-adr/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+name: afm-adr
+description: |
+  Writes an Architecture Decision Record to `<consumer>/docs/adr/NNNN-slug.md`. It records context, decision, alternatives and consequence. In a refactored project, write a retroactive ADR only when it is load-bearing.
+  Activates: `afm-adr`, "create ADR", "architectural decision", "record this architecture choice".
+---
+
+# AFM — ADR
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+Atomic skill of `afm`. The canonical procedure is the op `afm path ops/adr`. The CLI owns the number, the
+template, the frontmatter, the supersede link and the index. This skill keeps only the judgment.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This is a disambiguation for a skill that already activated. It does not control activation itself. A
+counterintuitive surprise belongs in `afm-gotcha`. A rule with an executable trigger belongs in `afm-rule`.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+`afm preflight`. Exit 3 means there is no instance: stop and suggest `afm-init` (greenfield) or
+`afm-refactor` (brownfield) first. Exit 4 means the shipped content does not resolve: report it, do not
+fall back silently.
+
+## Procedure (judgment only)
+
+1. Ask the status: `afm ask adr`. Collect the title, context, decision, alternatives, consequence and refs
+   as free text, because these fields carry intent.
+2. Run `afm adr new <slug> --title "<title>" --description "<one sentence>"`, with `--supersedes N` when
+   the decision replaces ADR N.
+3. Fill the sections of the printed file with what the operator said, and leave the rest `[TBD]`. Report the
+   path (#6).
+
+The "Additional step in a refactored project" in the op applies ONLY when `afm-refactor` adopted the
+project (signal: `afm.md` § 3.1 forward-only exists). A greenfield project forbids a retroactive ADR.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES`. Universals §1-8 apply. Additional #9 (a retroactive ADR is
+load-bearing-only) applies ONLY in a refactored project.
+
+Passive mode (`afm-reconcile`) is always on and can propose `afm-adr` when it detects a "novel structural
+decision" signal. This skill covers only the active creation.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-analyze/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+name: afm-analyze
+description: |
+  Cross-checks one feature against the instance. It compares `docs/features/NNN-*/{spec,plan,tasks}.md` with prd, ust, ach, afm § 3 and PRINCIPLES. It reports findings by severity in chat and writes no file.
+  Activates: `afm-analyze [<feature>]`, "audit feature", "check coverage", "validate consistency before implementation".
+---
+
+# AFM — Analyze
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+An atomic skill. The procedure lives in the op: read it with `afm path ops/analyze.md`, end to end, and follow it exactly.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+Use `afm-clarify` to resolve markers interactively. Use `afm-deliver` for end-to-end delivery: it runs analyze underneath, in gating mode. Use `afm-diagnose` for the health of the whole doc set.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+Run `afm preflight` (exit 3: no `docs/.afm-version`, stop and suggest `afm-init` or `afm-refactor`).
+
+## Procedure
+
+Start from the mechanical findings: `afm feature lint <NNN> --json` covers the passes A, C, D, E and the structure of `tasks.md`. Add the judgment on top (constitution violations, duplication, the semantic side of inconsistency and ambiguity), build the coverage table, assign severities by the matrix, and report in chat with metrics. Close with the `remediation` question (`afm ask analyze`). Gating mode sorts findings into buckets instead of reporting.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES.md`. Universals §1-8 apply, especially #2 (detection is an autonomous scan, not a question), #5 (no finding without evidence) and #6 (analyze is read-only: it reports in chat, writes no file, and remediates only on request).
+
+## Continuous doctrine
+
+Passive mode is the always-on `reconcile` skill. This skill covers only active auditing.
+
+## Version
+
+`afm version`. History: `afm path CHANGELOG.md`.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-clarify/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+name: afm-clarify
+description: |
+  Scans one feature for ambiguity. It asks the irreducible questions, recommendation first, and writes the answers to `spec.md § 7 Clarifications`.
+  Activates: `afm-clarify [<feature>]`, "resolve markers", "clear up ambiguity in feature X", "clarify the spec".
+---
+
+# AFM — Clarify
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+An atomic skill. The procedure lives in the op: read it with `afm path ops/clarify.md`, end to end, and follow it literally.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+Use `afm-analyze` for a read-only, multi-artifact validation that does not resolve markers. Use `afm-deliver` for end-to-end delivery: it calls clarify underneath when needed.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+Run `afm preflight` (exit 3: no `docs/.afm-version`, stop and suggest `afm-init` or `afm-refactor`). `afm feature status <NNN> --json` lists the open markers of a feature in `blockers`.
+
+## Procedure
+
+Judgment only: a 9-category scan of the spec, a prioritized queue (at most 5 questions), auto-resolution from the code and docs before any question, then one recommendation-first question per turn. The questions come from the spec, so they are dynamic; the one fixed decision (`underspecified`) is in `afm ask clarify`. Integrate each answer into `spec.md` at once, remove the marker, and finish with the coverage summary.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES.md`. Universals §1-8 apply. #2 is discover-first: resolve each question yourself through the scan or the docs, then ask. #4 says `[TBD]` beats invention, and a recommendation is a rejectable hypothesis, not a guess. #6 is autonomy-first: write the integration into spec § 7 and report. #8 is recommendation-first questions.
+
+## Continuous doctrine
+
+Passive mode is the always-on `reconcile` skill. This skill covers only the active resolution of ambiguity.
+
+## Version
+
+`afm version`. History: `afm path CHANGELOG.md`.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-deliver/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+name: afm-deliver
+description: |
+  Delivers one feature from discovery to reconciliation. It takes one recorded approval (`afm approve`), writes spec, plan and tasks, then runs each task as RED, GREEN, REFACTOR, COMMIT. It resumes from the correct phase when those files exist. Orchestrator: it composes specify, plan, tasks, clarify, analyze and reconcile. External research is not an AFM op; it routes to nasca.
+  Activates: `afm-deliver [<feature>]`, "build feature X", "implement X end to end", "the tasks already exist, run them", "continue the delivery of feature N".
+---
+
+# AFM — Deliver (orchestrated autonomous delivery)
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+The **orchestrator** of the delivery loop. One request takes "build feature X" from discovery to a delivered feature. The procedure lives in the op: read it with `afm path ops/deliver.md`, end to end, and follow it literally. It does not duplicate the sub-steps: it reads and follows `specify`, `plan`, `tasks`, `clarify`, `analyze` and `reconcile` through a suppression contract.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+An isolated step ("just open the spec", "just generate the tasks") is the matching atomic skill. A trivial change goes straight to the `afm.md § 2` loop.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+Run `afm preflight`. Exit 0 continues. Exit 3 means no `docs/.afm-version`: stop and suggest `afm-init` (greenfield) or `afm-refactor` (brownfield). Exit 4 or 5: report the line it printed. Do not fall back silently.
+
+## Procedure
+
+The CLI holds the state; the skill keeps only the judgment. Drive the loop with `afm feature status <NNN> --json`, which returns the phase to resume at, the next task and the blockers.
+
+- **Discovery:** scan scoped to the feature, external unknowns through the nasca research flow (`nasca-research`, or `nasca-campaign` for a deep study; ask the operator if nasca is missing), unknowns sorted into resolved-by-scan, researchable and irreducible. One batched, recommendation-first round, capped by the protocol (`afm-protocol`).
+- **Draft:** spec, plan and tasks, verified with `afm feature lint <NNN>` plus the judgment passes of `analyze`.
+- **Gate:** the earned questions plus the `outcome` question (`afm ask deliver`), then `afm approve <NNN>`. An explicit "go" skips the questions, never the record.
+- **Execute:** each task is one `core/afm.md` § 2 cycle, checked with `afm gate --staged`, then `afm task done <NNN> <Txxx>`. Halt on a non-`[P]` failure after the capped retry.
+- **Reconcile:** § 8.5 plus a passive sweep.
+
+If artifacts already exist, resume from the correct phase, including "tasks already exist, run from the first `[ ]`".
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES.md`. Universals §1-8 apply. The backbone is **#2** (discover-first: resolve unknowns by scan and research, ask only the irreducible part, never guess product or criteria) and **#6** (autonomy-first: approval at checkpoint granularity, the consolidated plan IS the proposal).
+
+## Continuous doctrine
+
+Passive mode is the always-on `reconcile` skill. It runs in parallel with `deliver` and takes the closing turn of Phase 4.
+
+## Version
+
+`afm version`. History: `afm path CHANGELOG.md`.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-diagnose/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+name: afm-diagnose
+description: |
+  Scans the health of the local docs on 7 axes. The axes are dead reference, stale marker, instance-to-plugin drift, broken ADR chain, dead rule trigger, inflation or orphan, and cross-doc contradiction. It reads only `<consumer>/docs/` and returns evidence as `command + file:line`. It proposes no edit.
+  Activates: `afm-diagnose`, "diagnose the methodology", "what is broken in the docs?", "run the AFM health check".
+---
+
+
+# AFM — Diagnose (mechanical weakness-mining, read-only)
+
+This is a mechanism skill of AFM. The canonical procedure is the op file that `afm path ops/diagnose.md` prints.
+
+> **Carve-out (does not overlap existing ops):** `analyze` audits **one feature**. `diagnose` audits the **whole instance** of `/docs/`. `reflect` uses **behavioral** evidence, where the agent stumbled. `diagnose` is **static**, based on filesystem and git. `evolve` is the **orchestrator**. It combines `diagnose` (mechanical evidence) with `reflect` (behavioral evidence) into one proposal and one gate. `diagnose` is **read-only**. It never proposes an edit or opens a gate.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This section disambiguates for a skill that already activated. It does not define activation, so it stays in the body, not in the resident listing.
+
+Validation of ONE feature is `afm-analyze`. Behavioral friction, where a doc misguided the agent at apply time, is `afm-reflect`. Proposing or applying a fix is `afm-evolve` (the full cycle, which includes diagnose).
+
+## Pre-check
+
+1. **Does `<consumer>/docs/.afm-version` exist?** If not, stop. Suggest `afm-init` (greenfield) or `afm-refactor` (brownfield) first.
+2. **Does `afm preflight` exit 0?** A non-zero exit says why (docs not bootstrapped, content unresolved, pin mismatch). Report it to the user. Do not fall back silently.
+
+## Procedure
+
+Read the op (`afm path ops/diagnose.md`) end to end. Follow it literally.
+
+The procedure has two phases. **Phase 0 — Scan** is gap-driven. Run `afm doctor --json`: it checks A1-A6, staleness and dead gotchas mechanically, and every finding carries a command plus `file:line`. You add A7 yourself. All 7 axes are checked, every time.
+
+Axis A7, cross-doc contradiction, uses a paired read. That read applies an anti-false-positive layer test. An axis that cannot be covered becomes "not-covered: <reason>".
+
+**Phase 1 — Diagnosis** has the ANALYZER role. **It must not propose an edit.** The signature is φ = `(symptom, causal-status-of-behavior, mechanism)`.
+
+Phase 1 requires rival mechanisms, for example "agent non-compliant" versus "target legitimately removed". It applies an addressability filter and a self-sufficient severity matrix.
+
+**Output** is an evidence bundle ordered by severity. Run à la carte, the skill prints the report to chat. It does not write to disk. It opens no gate. Under `evolve`, it feeds the proposal instead.
+
+This scan has no cooldown. It is read-only and cheap. The cycle's cooldown belongs to the orchestrator.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `PRINCIPLES.md` (`afm path PRINCIPLES.md`). Universals §1-8 apply. Especially relevant: #2 (discover-first — diagnose with evidence before any proposal). Also #3 (mechanize-or-demote — the checks must pass the test they audit). Also #5 (no finding without evidence external to the text).
+
+**No new principle here.** `diagnose` is a composed materialization. The doctrine lives in the op file.
+
+## Version
+
+Content version: `afm version` prints it.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-evolve/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: afm-evolve
+description: |
+  Runs the full self-evolution cycle over `<consumer>/docs/`. It combines diagnose and reflect, adds generalize, restructure, update and remediate on demand, and delivers one package through one gate (`afm ask evolve`). It conducts the mechanisms and never touches the plugin.
+  Activates: `afm-evolve`, "audit the methodology", "the docs are a mess", "the rules no longer trigger", "clean up the docs", "reorganize the docs".
+---
+
+
+# AFM — Evolve (orchestrator for the self-evolution cycle)
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+This is an orchestrator skill of AFM. The canonical procedure is the op file that `afm path ops/evolve.md` prints.
+
+> **Conductor, not executor** (same pattern as `deliver`). `evolve` owns 3 things that no mechanism owns alone: (1) the evidence-collection driver for the whole instance (combines `diagnose` + `reflect`), (2) the split into buckets plus the single gate, (3) the apply driver, post-conditions, and the log/lineage record. It reads and follows everything else from the mechanisms, through a suppression contract.
+>
+> **Carve-outs (it does not override existing ops):** `diagnose`/`reflect`/`generalize`/`restructure` are the **mechanisms** (each runs à la carte). `analyze` audits **one feature** (read-only). `reconcile` proposes **one single edit** at the end of a turn. `promote` **records** a finding meant for the plugin (it does not edit the plugin). `evolve` is the **cycle** that chains the mechanisms with one gate and one log — the level no other op covers.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This section helps someone who already activated the skill decide if it fits. It is not an activation trigger, so it stays in the body, not in the resident listing.
+
+Use a single mechanism instead when the need is narrow. A report is `afm-diagnose`. Refining a doc that misled you is `afm-reflect`. Merging gotchas is `afm-generalize`.
+
+A structure or staleness check is `afm-restructure`. A version bump is `afm-update`. `reconcile` proposes a one-off additive signal (new gotcha, rule, or ADR) directly.
+
+A feature-level check is `afm-analyze` or `afm-deliver`. Recording a finding for the plugin is `afm-promote`.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+1. **Does `<consumer>/docs/.afm-version` exist?** If not, stop. Suggest `afm-init` (greenfield) or `afm-refactor` (brownfield) first.
+2. **Does `afm preflight` exit 0?** A non-zero exit says why (docs not bootstrapped, content unresolved, pin mismatch). Report it to the user. Do not fall back silently.
+3. **Does `afm evolve gate-check` allow a cycle?** Pass `--symptom "<what the user said>"` when there is one. Exit 0 runs; exit 1 is the cooldown refusing (no new signal inside the window), so say so and stop; 3 and 4 mean not a project or undecided.
+
+## Procedure
+
+Read the op (`afm path ops/evolve.md`) end to end and follow it exactly. The op has 5 phases.
+
+**Phase 1 — Evidence collection.** Combine two sources through the suppression contract. `diagnose` is the mechanical scan of the 7 axes (`afm doctor --json` plus the A7 reading), read-only. `reflect` is behavioral evidence of docs that misled the agent. Run `generalize`/`restructure` on demand, when their own trigger signal fires. An empty diagnosis counts as a valid result.
+
+**Phase 2 — Proposal.** This phase plays the IMPROVER role. Apply the op's **shared proposal discipline**: retrieval before create, then a dry run before the gate. Split the proposals into 3 buckets.
+
+A non-restorable change always goes through the gate. It never invents its own target. Decide here whether to downgrade, archive, or merge an artifact. Cap bucket (b) at 8 items per cycle (`afm evolve gate-check --critical <n> --high <n> --medium <n> --low <n>` computes what to ask and what to stage). Recurring failures come from `afm failures promotable`.
+
+**Phase 3 — Single gate.** Ask item by item with `afm ask evolve --scope <item-slug>`, at most 4 questions per call. This gate is never skippable — there is no "go" shortcut.
+
+**Phase 4 — Apply and post-conditions.** Re-run `afm doctor --json`, `afm index --check` and `afm detect --for <file>` over the touched docs, and confirm the content root is clean (`git status`, or a timestamp check with no git).
+
+**Phase 5 — Log.** Record the cycle in `docs/evolution/NNN-<date>.md`. Suggest `promote` when a finding generalizes beyond this instance.
+
+Consult the rubric `rubrics/when-to-evolve-methodology.md` (`afm path rubrics/when-to-evolve-methodology.md`) to decide between a full cycle, a single mechanism, or a one-off fix.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+The single canonical source is `PRINCIPLES.md` (`afm path PRINCIPLES.md`). Universals §1-8 apply. #2 (discover-first) applies: diagnose with evidence before you propose. #3 (mechanize-or-downgrade) applies too: evolve's own signals must pass the same test evolve applies to others.
+
+#8 (earned questions, recommendation-first) also applies to this skill.
+
+#6 (autonomy-first with self-check) follows the pattern *produce → self-check → report*. The gate is the load-bearing residue. Bright lines for #7 plugin, deletion, and push still apply.
+
+**No new principle here** — evolve is a composed materialization. The doctrine lives in the op and the rubric.
+
+## Continuous doctrine
+
+The `reconcile` skill owns passive mode, and it is always on. Reconcile may **suggest** `afm-evolve` when it detects a Class B signal. That signal is a lived contradiction between docs, or perceived inflation at apply time. Only the user can invoke the full cycle.
+
+## Version
+
+Content version: `afm version` prints it.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-export-template/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+name: afm-export-template
+description: |
+  Converts a bootstrapped project into an architectural template. It deletes the product files, keeps ach, afm, gotchas and adr, and writes the `docs/.template` marker. It touches `docs/` only.
+  Activates: `afm-export-template`, "export as template", "turn this project into a starter".
+---
+
+# AFM — Export-template
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+Atomic skill of `afm`. The canonical procedure is the op `afm path ops/export-template`. The CLI owns the plan,
+the diff and the marker. This skill keeps the judgment.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This is a criterion for a skill already active, not an activation trigger. If the project is already a
+template (`docs/.template` exists), the op is idempotent but asks first.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+`afm template export --dry-run` does it: a project with no `docs/.afm-version` is not bootstrapped yet, so
+stop and suggest `afm-init` (greenfield) or `afm-refactor` (brownfield) first.
+
+## Procedure (judgment only)
+
+1. Collect the template name and version as free text. A blank answer stays `[TBD]`; never derive the name
+   from the folder.
+2. Ask what to keep: `afm ask export-template`. Put every coherence warning of the dry run to the operator.
+3. Induce the reusable task template from the latest all-green feature BEFORE `docs/features/` goes.
+4. Show the full diff with `afm template export --dry-run ...`, then ask `afm ask export-template-apply`.
+   Deleting files is a bright line: it is never applied without that confirmation.
+5. Apply with the same flags and `--yes`, and suggest the commit message the command prints.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES`. Universals §1-8 apply.
+
+Especially #5 (do not invent metadata when the operator leaves it blank: use `[TBD]` in the JSON). Also #6
+(autonomy-first, but deleting files is a bright line): confirm the diff before you delete.
+
+Passive mode (`afm-reconcile`) is always on. This skill focuses only on the active conversion to a template.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-generalize/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+name: afm-generalize
+description: |
+  Merges two or more similar gotchas into one abstract rule, from episodic to semantic. Merged entries become tombstones and nothing is deleted.
+  Activates: `afm-generalize`, "these gotchas are all the same thing", "merge these rules", "I have 3 gotchas that say the same thing".
+---
+
+
+# AFM — Generalize (semantic consolidation of gotchas)
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+Mechanism skill of AFM. The canonical procedure is the op file that `afm path ops/generalize.md` prints.
+
+> **Carve-out (does not overlap existing ops):** `promote` **registers** a finding meant for the plugin. It does not write to the plugin. `generalize` merges **inside the instance** (N gotchas become 1 rule in the same `/docs/`). `reconcile` **adds** a new gotcha. `generalize` **merges** gotchas that already exist. `reflect` refines **one** doc. `generalize` consolidates **many**. `evolve` is the **orchestrator** and it composes this skill when `diagnose` flags inflation from redundant gotchas.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This is a disambiguation criterion for someone who already activated the skill, not an activation trigger. That is why it lives in the body, not in the resident listing.
+
+Sending ONE learning to the plugin is `afm-promote`. ADDING a new gotcha or rule is `reconcile` -> `afm-gotcha`/`afm-rule` (`generalize` only merges what already exists). Refining the clarity of ONE doc is `afm-reflect`. With fewer than 2 similar candidates, there is no generalization to do.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+1. **Does `<consumer>/docs/.afm-version` exist?** If not, stop and suggest `afm-init` (greenfield) or `afm-refactor` (brownfield) first.
+2. **Does `afm preflight` exit 0?** A non-zero exit says why (docs not bootstrapped, content unresolved, pin mismatch). Report it to the user. Do not fall back silently.
+3. **Is there a batch of >=2** similar gotchas/reflections? If not, report "nothing to generalize (no batch)" and stop. Generalizing from 1 case is forbidden (#5).
+
+## Procedure
+
+Read the op (`afm path ops/generalize.md`) end to end. Follow it literally.
+
+**1. Identify the batch:** cluster by shared abstract cause, >=2 cases. Ask "would one more general instruction have prevented all N?" A larger batch yields a more abstract rule.
+
+**2. MetaReflect:** draft the generalized, non-case-specific rule. The original cases become examples. Follow the **shared proposal discipline** from `evolve.md` (`afm path ops/evolve.md`) instead of duplicating it. Reduce, do not create a parallel path.
+
+**3. ShowsImprovement + backtracking:** check if the rule covers all N cases. A hard rule needs an executable 0/1 trigger. Otherwise it becomes a § 1.3 principle. If it cannot cover all cases without turning vague, back out and keep the cases separate.
+
+-> **4. Own gate** (item (b), unavoidable and earned, through `afm ask generalize`; suppressed under `evolve`. On approval: write the rule via `rule.md` (`afm rule new <slug>`) and **archive the merged entries as tombstones**. Never delete) -> **5. Record** the result in `docs/evolution/NNN-<date>.md`. Suggest `promote` if the finding matters beyond this instance.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `PRINCIPLES.md` (`afm path PRINCIPLES.md`). Universals §1-8 apply here, especially #1 (episodic `gotchas.md` -> semantic `afm.md`). Also #3: a merged rule becomes hard only with an executable 0/1 trigger, the ShowsImprovement step of MetaReflection. Also #5: do not invent an abstraction without a real batch.
+
+Also #6/#8: self-verify before an earned gate. Deletion is a bright line. Use tombstones instead. **No new principle here** — `generalize` is a composed materialization. The doctrine lives in the op file.
+
+## Version
+
+Content version: `afm version` prints it.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-gotcha/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+name: afm-gotcha
+description: |
+  Writes a counterintuitive surprise to `<consumer>/docs/gotchas/`. The entry gate is mandatory: the issue must have bitten twice, or it must be documented behavior of an external SDK or runtime.
+  Activates: `afm-gotcha`, "register a gotcha", "this has confused me before", "note this surprise for the next person".
+---
+
+# AFM — Gotcha
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+Atomic skill of `afm`. The canonical procedure is the op `afm path ops/gotcha`. The CLI owns the entry
+gate, the number, the frontmatter the trigger index reads and the index. This skill keeps only the judgment.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This is a disambiguation for a skill that already activated. An architectural decision belongs to
+`afm-adr`. A rule with an executable trigger belongs to `afm-rule`. A recurring failure with an external
+signal belongs to `afm-remediate`.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+`afm preflight`. Exit 3 means there is no instance: stop and suggest `afm-init` or `afm-refactor` first.
+
+## Procedure (judgment only)
+
+1. Validate the entry rule BEFORE you collect content: `afm ask gotcha`. `neither` stops: reject a gotcha
+   without a 2x incidence or an external doc.
+2. Collect the area, trigger, behavior, solution and references as free text. Decide how it fires: an
+   `event` when no file shape can fire it, a `file-shape` only with a narrow glob. A guessed trigger is worse
+   than one that never fires.
+3. Run `afm gotcha new <slug> --basis <bitten-twice|documented-sdk> ...` and report the path (#6). A later
+   re-bite is `afm gotcha bite <id>`.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES`. Universals §1-8 apply. Two matter most here: #5 (do not
+invent a gotcha without a real case; the 2x entry check is a strong gate) and #6 (autonomy-first: save the
+result and report it).
+
+Passive mode (`afm-reconcile`) is always on and can propose `afm-gotcha` when it detects the signal "the
+same runtime surprise blocked work twice." This skill covers only active registration.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-init/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+name: afm-init
+description: |
+  Bootstraps AFM in a greenfield project. The CLI materializes `<consumer>/docs/` mechanically; the skill runs the interview for what only the operator knows, asking closed questions through `afm ask`. It detects the `docs/.template` marker and branches to the from-template path. It activates ONLY on explicit invocation and never from project state.
+  Activates: `afm-init`, "build the AFM doc", "bootstrap AFM".
+---
+
+# AFM — Init (greenfield bootstrap)
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+This skill of `afm` handles **greenfield bootstrap** and the from-template branch. It has a single
+responsibility. It does not route ops (each op is its own skill).
+
+The interview script is `afm path interview/bootstrap`. This skill is a router. It **never invents a
+procedure. It always reads the source first.** The layout of the shipped content is `afm path README`.
+
+---
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+This is a disambiguation criterion for a skill that already activated. It is not an activation trigger.
+
+If the project already has `docs/.afm-version`, use the atomic skills instead. To move to a new version, use
+`afm-update`. A brownfield codebase with no docs needs `afm-refactor` instead.
+
+## Pre-check (before any action)
+
+1. **`afm preflight`.** Exit 3 means there is no `docs/.afm-version`: continue. Any other exit means the
+   project is already bootstrapped. **Do not run bootstrap again.** The atomic skills stay available
+   (`afm-gotcha`, `afm-adr`, `afm-rule`, `afm-promote`, `afm-specify`, `afm-plan`, `afm-tasks`, `afm-clarify`,
+   `afm-analyze`, `afm-export-template`), and passive mode (`afm-reconcile`) stays always-on.
+2. **Does `docs/.template` exist?** Yes means the project comes from a template: ask `afm ask init-template`
+   whether to run the from-template branch, a subset focused on the product (default `Product only`). `Full
+   interview` goes to pre-check 3.
+3. **Does the project have significant pre-existing code?** A populated source root and a manifest with real
+   dependencies, or a git log with more than 20 commits. If so this is NOT the right path: stop and suggest
+   `afm-refactor`: *"This project already has code. Greenfield bootstrap would make you pretend it is new.
+   `afm-refactor` infers the docs from the existing code. Want to run it?"* `afm refactor --mechanical
+   --dry-run` states the verdict with its reasons.
+4. **Is the shipped content resolved?** `afm preflight` exit 4 means it is not. Tell the operator. Do not
+   guess the content and do not fail silently.
+
+---
+
+## Procedure (greenfield bootstrap)
+
+For projects without `docs/.afm-version`:
+
+1. Read `afm path interview/bootstrap` end to end.
+2. Ask the closed decisions the mechanical pass needs: `afm ask init`. Then run `afm init --mechanical`
+   (preview with `--dry-run`, or `--answers <file>` for a headless run). It creates `docs/` and `docs/adr/`,
+   fills the skeletons with the measured rule constants and `[TBD]` where the code answers nothing, copies
+   every rubric and pattern, writes `AGENTS.md` plus the harness stubs, and writes `docs/.afm-version` last.
+3. **Run the 7-step interview literally.** One question per turn. Free text only for open descriptions. For
+   everything with closed options, ask through `afm ask <op>` with the recommendation first (invariant
+   principle #8). Validate each answer with `afm ask confirm`. Fill each step into the matching
+   `docs/<file>.md`, replacing `{{placeholders}}` with the operator's answers and leaving unknown answers as
+   `[TBD]` (invariant principle #4).
+4. Apply opt-in modules. For each stack the operator confirms, read `afm path modules/<stack>/ach.patch` and
+   `afm path modules/<stack>/rules.patch` and merge them into `docs/ach.md` and `docs/afm.md`. A
+   `gotchas.seed` is a **commented reference** only: the project's `docs/gotchas/` starts empty.
+5. Generate the indexes (`afm index --materialize`) and print a summary: list every `[TBD]` and ask which ones
+   to fill in now.
+
+**Branch from-template** (if pre-check 2 found `docs/.template`): run a subset of the steps. The subset is
+0 + 3 + 6 short + 7 adapted. Skip steps 1, 2, 4 and 5, because the template already has them. The full
+procedure is in `afm path interview/bootstrap` § Alternate branch. `.afm-version` gets an inheritance line.
+
+---
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES`. For this skill (greenfield), the 8 universals apply (§1-8).
+#9 (retroactive ADR, load-bearing) does NOT apply to init. Bootstrap forbids a retroactive ADR.
+
+## Continuous doctrine
+
+Passive mode (`afm-reconcile`) is the responsibility of the `reconcile` skill. It stays always-on in any AFM
+project session. This skill covers only the active bootstrap procedure.
+
+## Version
+
+`afm version` prints the version in use. History: `afm path CHANGELOG`.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+name: afm-plan
+description: |
+  Fills `plan.md` for the active feature. It reads the stack from `ach.md` and infers the affected components from the code. It records each decision with its rejected alternatives. It soft-blocks on an open `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION:]` in the spec.
+  Activates: `afm-plan [<feature>]`, "plan feature", "draft plan for feature X".
+---
+
+# AFM — Plan
+
+> **Questions in this host.** `afm ask <op>` prompts only in a terminal, and your shell tool has none: it exits 2. Run `afm ask <op> --json` instead and put each pending question to the operator with the host's question tool when it has one, and otherwise in chat as a numbered list: the `prompt`, then the `options` with their descriptions, the recommended one first and marked. Wait for the answer. Then record each choice with `afm answer <op> <id> <label>` (one label per selected option). Run `afm ask <op>` again: `all questions answered` means the op may go on.
+
+An atomic skill. The procedure lives in the op: read it with `afm path ops/plan.md`, end to end, and follow it literally.
+
+## When NOT to activate
+
+There is no `spec.md` yet: run `afm-specify` first. An end-to-end delivery is `deliver`, which composes this op.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+Run `afm preflight` (exit 3: stop and suggest `afm-init` or `afm-refactor`). Run `afm feature status <NNN> --json`: a non-empty `blockers` means open `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION:]` markers in the spec, and the op asks the `open-markers` question (`afm ask plan`) before it goes on.
+
+## Procedure
+
+Read the stack from `docs/ach.md` and never reopen it. Infer the components, decisions, contracts and complexity from the code scan, and ask only for what the scan cannot resolve. Create the plan with `afm new feature-plan --feature NNN-slug` and fill it, including the first real `for_paths`. List the hard rules of `docs/afm.md` § 3 that apply, each binary. Suggest an ADR (`afm adr new <slug>`) for a load-bearing decision. Autonomy-first: write and report.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES.md`. Universals §1-8 apply. In particular #2 (discover-first: scan before you ask), #5 (do not invent contracts or a stack) and #8 (a question carries a recommendation).
+
+## Continuous doctrine
+
+Passive mode is the always-on `reconcile` skill. This skill covers only the planning.
+
+## Version
+
+`afm version`. History: `afm path CHANGELOG.md`.

package/plugin/opencode/skills/afm-policy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+name: afm-policy
+description: |
+  Reports what the organisation policy bundle imposes in this project. It answers which rules apply, which gotchas apply, whether the bundle can block, and what the reader may not edit here. It reads only and writes to neither bundle.
+  Activates: `afm-policy`, "what does the organisation impose here", "which rules come from outside this repository", "why can I not edit this rule".
+---
+
+# AFM — Policy (report the organisation layer)
+
+Atomic skill of `afm`. The canonical procedure is the op `afm path ops/policy`.
+
+## When not to activate
+
+Never to CHANGE the policy. This skill reads. The organisation bundle belongs to whoever owns it, and no
+operation in this plugin writes to it.
+
+## Pre-check
+
+`afm preflight`. Exit 3 means there is no instance: stop. No organisation policy configured is a valid state
+that `afm policy report` says plainly, and a bundle with no `policy.md` is not a policy bundle: report it
+and stop.
+
+## Procedure (judgment only)
+
+Run `afm policy report` and read it by family. Say plainly that a policy bundle injects context and blocks
+nothing, and name what the reader may not edit here and who owns it. Never report a policy rule as
+enforced.
+
+## Invariant principles
+
+Single canonical source: `afm path PRINCIPLES`. Universals §1-8 apply.