codeply-cli 0.5.6 → 0.6.0

package/skills/architecture-decision-records/SKILL.md

@@ -1,180 +1,180 @@
----
-name: architecture-decision-records
-description: Capture architectural decisions made during Claude Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way it is.
-metadata:
-  origin: ECC
----
-
-# Architecture Decision Records
-
-Capture architectural decisions as they happen during coding sessions. Instead of decisions living only in Slack threads, PR comments, or someone's memory, this skill produces structured ADR documents that live alongside the code.
-
-## When to Activate
-
-- User explicitly says "let's record this decision" or "ADR this"
-- User chooses between significant alternatives (framework, library, pattern, database, API design)
-- User says "we decided to..." or "the reason we're doing X instead of Y is..."
-- User asks "why did we choose X?" (read existing ADRs)
-- During planning phases when architectural trade-offs are discussed
-
-## ADR Format
-
-Use the lightweight ADR format proposed by Michael Nygard, adapted for AI-assisted development:
-
-```markdown
-# ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]
-
-**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
-**Status**: proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN
-**Deciders**: [who was involved]
-
-## Context
-
-What is the issue that we're seeing that is motivating this decision or change?
-
-[2-5 sentences describing the situation, constraints, and forces at play]
-
-## Decision
-
-What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?
-
-[1-3 sentences stating the decision clearly]
-
-## Alternatives Considered
-
-### Alternative 1: [Name]
-- **Pros**: [benefits]
-- **Cons**: [drawbacks]
-- **Why not**: [specific reason this was rejected]
-
-### Alternative 2: [Name]
-- **Pros**: [benefits]
-- **Cons**: [drawbacks]
-- **Why not**: [specific reason this was rejected]
-
-## Consequences
-
-What becomes easier or more difficult to do because of this change?
-
-### Positive
-- [benefit 1]
-- [benefit 2]
-
-### Negative
-- [trade-off 1]
-- [trade-off 2]
-
-### Risks
-- [risk and mitigation]
-```
-
-## Workflow
-
-### Capturing a New ADR
-
-When a decision moment is detected:
-
-1. **Initialize (first time only)** — if `docs/adr/` does not exist, ask the user for confirmation before creating the directory, a `README.md` seeded with the index table header (see ADR Index Format below), and a blank `template.md` for manual use. Do not create files without explicit consent.
-2. **Identify the decision** — extract the core architectural choice being made
-3. **Gather context** — what problem prompted this? What constraints exist?
-4. **Document alternatives** — what other options were considered? Why were they rejected?
-5. **State consequences** — what are the trade-offs? What becomes easier/harder?
-6. **Assign a number** — scan existing ADRs in `docs/adr/` and increment
-7. **Confirm and write** — present the draft ADR to the user for review. Only write to `docs/adr/NNNN-decision-title.md` after explicit approval. If the user declines, discard the draft without writing any files.
-8. **Update the index** — append to `docs/adr/README.md`
-
-### Reading Existing ADRs
-
-When a user asks "why did we choose X?":
-
-1. Check if `docs/adr/` exists — if not, respond: "No ADRs found in this project. Would you like to start recording architectural decisions?"
-2. If it exists, scan `docs/adr/README.md` index for relevant entries
-3. Read matching ADR files and present the Context and Decision sections
-4. If no match is found, respond: "No ADR found for that decision. Would you like to record one now?"
-
-### ADR Directory Structure
-
-```
-docs/
-└── adr/
-    ├── README.md              ← index of all ADRs
-    ├── 0001-use-nextjs.md
-    ├── 0002-postgres-over-mongo.md
-    ├── 0003-rest-over-graphql.md
-    └── template.md            ← blank template for manual use
-```
-
-### ADR Index Format
-
-```markdown
-# Architecture Decision Records
-
-| ADR | Title | Status | Date |
-|-----|-------|--------|------|
-| [0001](0001-use-nextjs.md) | Use Next.js as frontend framework | accepted | 2026-01-15 |
-| [0002](0002-postgres-over-mongo.md) | PostgreSQL over MongoDB for primary datastore | accepted | 2026-01-20 |
-| [0003](0003-rest-over-graphql.md) | REST API over GraphQL | accepted | 2026-02-01 |
-```
-
-## Decision Detection Signals
-
-Watch for these patterns in conversation that indicate an architectural decision:
-
-**Explicit signals**
-- "Let's go with X"
-- "We should use X instead of Y"
-- "The trade-off is worth it because..."
-- "Record this as an ADR"
-
-**Implicit signals** (suggest recording an ADR — do not auto-create without user confirmation)
-- Comparing two frameworks or libraries and reaching a conclusion
-- Making a database schema design choice with stated rationale
-- Choosing between architectural patterns (monolith vs microservices, REST vs GraphQL)
-- Deciding on authentication/authorization strategy
-- Selecting deployment infrastructure after evaluating alternatives
-
-## What Makes a Good ADR
-
-### Do
-- **Be specific** — "Use Prisma ORM" not "use an ORM"
-- **Record the why** — the rationale matters more than the what
-- **Include rejected alternatives** — future developers need to know what was considered
-- **State consequences honestly** — every decision has trade-offs
-- **Keep it short** — an ADR should be readable in 2 minutes
-- **Use present tense** — "We use X" not "We will use X"
-
-### Don't
-- Record trivial decisions — variable naming or formatting choices don't need ADRs
-- Write essays — if the context section exceeds 10 lines, it's too long
-- Omit alternatives — "we just picked it" is not a valid rationale
-- Backfill without marking it — if recording a past decision, note the original date
-- Let ADRs go stale — superseded decisions should reference their replacement
-
-## ADR Lifecycle
-
-```
-proposed → accepted → [deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN]
-```
-
-- **proposed**: decision is under discussion, not yet committed
-- **accepted**: decision is in effect and being followed
-- **deprecated**: decision is no longer relevant (e.g., feature removed)
-- **superseded**: a newer ADR replaces this one (always link the replacement)
-
-## Categories of Decisions Worth Recording
-
-| Category | Examples |
-|----------|---------|
-| **Technology choices** | Framework, language, database, cloud provider |
-| **Architecture patterns** | Monolith vs microservices, event-driven, CQRS |
-| **API design** | REST vs GraphQL, versioning strategy, auth mechanism |
-| **Data modeling** | Schema design, normalization decisions, caching strategy |
-| **Infrastructure** | Deployment model, CI/CD pipeline, monitoring stack |
-| **Security** | Auth strategy, encryption approach, secret management |
-| **Testing** | Test framework, coverage targets, E2E vs integration balance |
-| **Process** | Branching strategy, review process, release cadence |
-
-## Integration with Other Skills
-
-- **Planner agent**: when the planner proposes architecture changes, suggest creating an ADR
-- **Code reviewer agent**: flag PRs that introduce architectural changes without a corresponding ADR
+---
+name: architecture-decision-records
+description: Capture architectural decisions made during Claude Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way it is.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Architecture Decision Records
+
+Capture architectural decisions as they happen during coding sessions. Instead of decisions living only in Slack threads, PR comments, or someone's memory, this skill produces structured ADR documents that live alongside the code.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- User explicitly says "let's record this decision" or "ADR this"
+- User chooses between significant alternatives (framework, library, pattern, database, API design)
+- User says "we decided to..." or "the reason we're doing X instead of Y is..."
+- User asks "why did we choose X?" (read existing ADRs)
+- During planning phases when architectural trade-offs are discussed
+
+## ADR Format
+
+Use the lightweight ADR format proposed by Michael Nygard, adapted for AI-assisted development:
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-NNNN: [Decision Title]
+
+**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
+**Status**: proposed | accepted | deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN
+**Deciders**: [who was involved]
+
+## Context
+
+What is the issue that we're seeing that is motivating this decision or change?
+
+[2-5 sentences describing the situation, constraints, and forces at play]
+
+## Decision
+
+What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?
+
+[1-3 sentences stating the decision clearly]
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### Alternative 1: [Name]
+- **Pros**: [benefits]
+- **Cons**: [drawbacks]
+- **Why not**: [specific reason this was rejected]
+
+### Alternative 2: [Name]
+- **Pros**: [benefits]
+- **Cons**: [drawbacks]
+- **Why not**: [specific reason this was rejected]
+
+## Consequences
+
+What becomes easier or more difficult to do because of this change?
+
+### Positive
+- [benefit 1]
+- [benefit 2]
+
+### Negative
+- [trade-off 1]
+- [trade-off 2]
+
+### Risks
+- [risk and mitigation]
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Capturing a New ADR
+
+When a decision moment is detected:
+
+1. **Initialize (first time only)** — if `docs/adr/` does not exist, ask the user for confirmation before creating the directory, a `README.md` seeded with the index table header (see ADR Index Format below), and a blank `template.md` for manual use. Do not create files without explicit consent.
+2. **Identify the decision** — extract the core architectural choice being made
+3. **Gather context** — what problem prompted this? What constraints exist?
+4. **Document alternatives** — what other options were considered? Why were they rejected?
+5. **State consequences** — what are the trade-offs? What becomes easier/harder?
+6. **Assign a number** — scan existing ADRs in `docs/adr/` and increment
+7. **Confirm and write** — present the draft ADR to the user for review. Only write to `docs/adr/NNNN-decision-title.md` after explicit approval. If the user declines, discard the draft without writing any files.
+8. **Update the index** — append to `docs/adr/README.md`
+
+### Reading Existing ADRs
+
+When a user asks "why did we choose X?":
+
+1. Check if `docs/adr/` exists — if not, respond: "No ADRs found in this project. Would you like to start recording architectural decisions?"
+2. If it exists, scan `docs/adr/README.md` index for relevant entries
+3. Read matching ADR files and present the Context and Decision sections
+4. If no match is found, respond: "No ADR found for that decision. Would you like to record one now?"
+
+### ADR Directory Structure
+
+```
+docs/
+└── adr/
+    ├── README.md              ← index of all ADRs
+    ├── 0001-use-nextjs.md
+    ├── 0002-postgres-over-mongo.md
+    ├── 0003-rest-over-graphql.md
+    └── template.md            ← blank template for manual use
+```
+
+### ADR Index Format
+
+```markdown
+# Architecture Decision Records
+
+| ADR | Title | Status | Date |
+|-----|-------|--------|------|
+| [0001](0001-use-nextjs.md) | Use Next.js as frontend framework | accepted | 2026-01-15 |
+| [0002](0002-postgres-over-mongo.md) | PostgreSQL over MongoDB for primary datastore | accepted | 2026-01-20 |
+| [0003](0003-rest-over-graphql.md) | REST API over GraphQL | accepted | 2026-02-01 |
+```
+
+## Decision Detection Signals
+
+Watch for these patterns in conversation that indicate an architectural decision:
+
+**Explicit signals**
+- "Let's go with X"
+- "We should use X instead of Y"
+- "The trade-off is worth it because..."
+- "Record this as an ADR"
+
+**Implicit signals** (suggest recording an ADR — do not auto-create without user confirmation)
+- Comparing two frameworks or libraries and reaching a conclusion
+- Making a database schema design choice with stated rationale
+- Choosing between architectural patterns (monolith vs microservices, REST vs GraphQL)
+- Deciding on authentication/authorization strategy
+- Selecting deployment infrastructure after evaluating alternatives
+
+## What Makes a Good ADR
+
+### Do
+- **Be specific** — "Use Prisma ORM" not "use an ORM"
+- **Record the why** — the rationale matters more than the what
+- **Include rejected alternatives** — future developers need to know what was considered
+- **State consequences honestly** — every decision has trade-offs
+- **Keep it short** — an ADR should be readable in 2 minutes
+- **Use present tense** — "We use X" not "We will use X"
+
+### Don't
+- Record trivial decisions — variable naming or formatting choices don't need ADRs
+- Write essays — if the context section exceeds 10 lines, it's too long
+- Omit alternatives — "we just picked it" is not a valid rationale
+- Backfill without marking it — if recording a past decision, note the original date
+- Let ADRs go stale — superseded decisions should reference their replacement
+
+## ADR Lifecycle
+
+```
+proposed → accepted → [deprecated | superseded by ADR-NNNN]
+```
+
+- **proposed**: decision is under discussion, not yet committed
+- **accepted**: decision is in effect and being followed
+- **deprecated**: decision is no longer relevant (e.g., feature removed)
+- **superseded**: a newer ADR replaces this one (always link the replacement)
+
+## Categories of Decisions Worth Recording
+
+| Category | Examples |
+|----------|---------|
+| **Technology choices** | Framework, language, database, cloud provider |
+| **Architecture patterns** | Monolith vs microservices, event-driven, CQRS |
+| **API design** | REST vs GraphQL, versioning strategy, auth mechanism |
+| **Data modeling** | Schema design, normalization decisions, caching strategy |
+| **Infrastructure** | Deployment model, CI/CD pipeline, monitoring stack |
+| **Security** | Auth strategy, encryption approach, secret management |
+| **Testing** | Test framework, coverage targets, E2E vs integration balance |
+| **Process** | Branching strategy, review process, release cadence |
+
+## Integration with Other Skills
+
+- **Planner agent**: when the planner proposes architecture changes, suggest creating an ADR
+- **Code reviewer agent**: flag PRs that introduce architectural changes without a corresponding ADR

package/skills/article-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -1,80 +1,80 @@
----
-name: article-writing
-description: Write articles, guides, blog posts, tutorials, newsletter issues, and other long-form content in a distinctive voice derived from supplied examples or brand guidance. Use when the user wants polished written content longer than a paragraph, especially when voice consistency, structure, and credibility matter.
-metadata:
-  origin: ECC
----
-
-# Article Writing
-
-Write long-form content that sounds like an actual person with a point of view, not an LLM smoothing itself into paste.
-
-## When to Activate
-
-- drafting blog posts, essays, launch posts, guides, tutorials, or newsletter issues
-- turning notes, transcripts, or research into polished articles
-- matching an existing founder, operator, or brand voice from examples
-- tightening structure, pacing, and evidence in already-written long-form copy
-
-## Core Rules
-
-1. Lead with the concrete thing: artifact, example, output, anecdote, number, screenshot, or code.
-2. Explain after the example, not before.
-3. Keep sentences tight unless the source voice is intentionally expansive.
-4. Use proof instead of adjectives.
-5. Never invent facts, credibility, or customer evidence.
-
-## Voice Handling
-
-If the user wants a specific voice, run `brand-voice` first and reuse its `VOICE PROFILE`.
-Do not duplicate a second style-analysis pass here unless the user explicitly asks for one.
-
-If no voice references are given, default to a sharp operator voice: concrete, unsentimental, useful.
-
-## Banned Patterns
-
-Delete and rewrite any of these:
-- "In today's rapidly evolving landscape"
-- "game-changer", "cutting-edge", "revolutionary"
-- "here's why this matters" as a standalone bridge
-- fake vulnerability arcs
-- a closing question added only to juice engagement
-- biography padding that does not move the argument
-- generic AI throat-clearing that delays the point
-
-## Writing Process
-
-1. Clarify the audience and purpose.
-2. Build a hard outline with one job per section.
-3. Start sections with proof, artifact, conflict, or example.
-4. Expand only where the next sentence earns space.
-5. Cut anything that sounds templated, overexplained, or self-congratulatory.
-
-## Structure Guidance
-
-### Technical Guides
-
-- open with what the reader gets
-- use code, commands, screenshots, or concrete output in major sections
-- end with actionable takeaways, not a soft recap
-
-### Essays / Opinion
-
-- start with tension, contradiction, or a specific observation
-- keep one argument thread per section
-- make opinions answer to evidence
-
-### Newsletters
-
-- keep the first screen doing real work
-- do not front-load diary filler
-- use section labels only when they improve scanability
-
-## Quality Gate
-
-Before delivering:
-- factual claims are backed by provided sources
-- generic AI transitions are gone
-- the voice matches the supplied examples or the agreed `VOICE PROFILE`
-- every section adds something new
-- formatting matches the intended medium
+---
+name: article-writing
+description: Write articles, guides, blog posts, tutorials, newsletter issues, and other long-form content in a distinctive voice derived from supplied examples or brand guidance. Use when the user wants polished written content longer than a paragraph, especially when voice consistency, structure, and credibility matter.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Article Writing
+
+Write long-form content that sounds like an actual person with a point of view, not an LLM smoothing itself into paste.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- drafting blog posts, essays, launch posts, guides, tutorials, or newsletter issues
+- turning notes, transcripts, or research into polished articles
+- matching an existing founder, operator, or brand voice from examples
+- tightening structure, pacing, and evidence in already-written long-form copy
+
+## Core Rules
+
+1. Lead with the concrete thing: artifact, example, output, anecdote, number, screenshot, or code.
+2. Explain after the example, not before.
+3. Keep sentences tight unless the source voice is intentionally expansive.
+4. Use proof instead of adjectives.
+5. Never invent facts, credibility, or customer evidence.
+
+## Voice Handling
+
+If the user wants a specific voice, run `brand-voice` first and reuse its `VOICE PROFILE`.
+Do not duplicate a second style-analysis pass here unless the user explicitly asks for one.
+
+If no voice references are given, default to a sharp operator voice: concrete, unsentimental, useful.
+
+## Banned Patterns
+
+Delete and rewrite any of these:
+- "In today's rapidly evolving landscape"
+- "game-changer", "cutting-edge", "revolutionary"
+- "here's why this matters" as a standalone bridge
+- fake vulnerability arcs
+- a closing question added only to juice engagement
+- biography padding that does not move the argument
+- generic AI throat-clearing that delays the point
+
+## Writing Process
+
+1. Clarify the audience and purpose.
+2. Build a hard outline with one job per section.
+3. Start sections with proof, artifact, conflict, or example.
+4. Expand only where the next sentence earns space.
+5. Cut anything that sounds templated, overexplained, or self-congratulatory.
+
+## Structure Guidance
+
+### Technical Guides
+
+- open with what the reader gets
+- use code, commands, screenshots, or concrete output in major sections
+- end with actionable takeaways, not a soft recap
+
+### Essays / Opinion
+
+- start with tension, contradiction, or a specific observation
+- keep one argument thread per section
+- make opinions answer to evidence
+
+### Newsletters
+
+- keep the first screen doing real work
+- do not front-load diary filler
+- use section labels only when they improve scanability
+
+## Quality Gate
+
+Before delivering:
+- factual claims are backed by provided sources
+- generic AI transitions are gone
+- the voice matches the supplied examples or the agreed `VOICE PROFILE`
+- every section adds something new
+- formatting matches the intended medium