context-mode 1.0.106 → 1.0.108

package/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/INTERFACE-DESIGN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Interface Design
+
+When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
+
+Uses the vocabulary in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Frame the problem space
+
+Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
+
+- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
+- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
+
+Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
+
+### 2. Spawn sub-agents
+
+Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
+
+Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
+
+- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
+- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
+- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
+- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
+
+Include both [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
+
+Each sub-agent outputs:
+
+1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
+2. Usage example showing how callers use it
+3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
+4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
+5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
+
+### 3. Present and compare
+
+Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
+
+After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.

package/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/LANGUAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Language
+
+Shared vocabulary for every suggestion this skill makes. Use these terms exactly — don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
+
+## Terms
+
+**Module**
+Anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic — applies equally to a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice.
+_Avoid_: unit, component, service.
+
+**Interface**
+Everything a caller must know to use the module correctly. Includes the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics.
+_Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — those refer only to the type-level surface).
+
+**Implementation**
+What's inside a module — its body of code. Distinct from **Adapter**: a thing can be a small adapter with a large implementation (a Postgres repo) or a large adapter with a small implementation (an in-memory fake). Reach for "adapter" when the seam is the topic; "implementation" otherwise.
+
+**Depth**
+Leverage at the interface — the amount of behaviour a caller (or test) can exercise per unit of interface they have to learn. A module is **deep** when a large amount of behaviour sits behind a small interface. A module is **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
+
+**Seam** _(from Michael Feathers)_
+A place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place. The *location* at which a module's interface lives. Choosing where to put the seam is its own design decision, distinct from what goes behind it.
+_Avoid_: boundary (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).
+
+**Adapter**
+A concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Describes *role* (what slot it fills), not substance (what's inside).
+
+**Leverage**
+What callers get from depth. More capability per unit of interface they have to learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
+
+**Locality**
+What maintainers get from depth. Change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate at one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.
+
+## Principles
+
+- **Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation.** A deep module can be internally composed of small, mockable, swappable parts — they just aren't part of the interface. A module can have **internal seams** (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the **external seam** at its interface.
+- **The deletion test.** Imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, the module wasn't hiding anything (it was a pass-through). If complexity reappears across N callers, the module was earning its keep.
+- **The interface is the test surface.** Callers and tests cross the same seam. If you want to test *past* the interface, the module is probably the wrong shape.
+- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a seam unless something actually varies across it.
+
+## Relationships
+
+- A **Module** has exactly one **Interface** (the surface it presents to callers and tests).
+- **Depth** is a property of a **Module**, measured against its **Interface**.
+- A **Seam** is where a **Module**'s **Interface** lives.
+- An **Adapter** sits at a **Seam** and satisfies the **Interface**.
+- **Depth** produces **Leverage** for callers and **Locality** for maintainers.
+
+## Rejected framings
+
+- **Depth as ratio of implementation-lines to interface-lines** (Ousterhout): rewards padding the implementation. We use depth-as-leverage instead.
+- **"Interface" as the TypeScript `interface` keyword or a class's public methods**: too narrow — interface here includes every fact a caller must know.
+- **"Boundary"**: overloaded with DDD's bounded context. Say **seam** or **interface**.

package/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+name: improve-codebase-architecture
+description: Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
+---
+
+# 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.
+
+## Glossary
+
+Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Full definitions in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md).
+
+- **Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, package, slice).
+- **Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, invariants, error modes, ordering, config. Not just the type signature.
+- **Implementation** — the code inside.
+- **Depth** — leverage at the interface: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface. **Deep** = high leverage. **Shallow** = interface nearly as complex as the implementation.
+- **Seam** — where an interface lives; a place behaviour can be altered without editing in place. (Use this, not "boundary.")
+- **Adapter** — a concrete thing satisfying an interface at a seam.
+- **Leverage** — what callers get from depth.
+- **Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.
+
+Key principles (see [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) for the full list):
+
+- **Deletion test**: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
+- **The interface is the test surface.**
+- **One adapter = hypothetical seam. Two adapters = real seam.**
+
+This skill is _informed_ by the project's domain model. The domain language gives names to good seams; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Explore
+
+Read the project's domain glossary and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
+
+Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` 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
+
+Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
+
+- **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 also in how tests would improve
+
+**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) 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 (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
+
+Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
+
+### 3. Grilling loop
+
+Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the design 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:
+
+- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md` — same discipline as `/grill-with-docs` (see [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/CONTEXT-FORMAT.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. See [ADR-FORMAT.md](../grill-with-docs/ADR-FORMAT.md).
+- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** See [INTERFACE-DESIGN.md](INTERFACE-DESIGN.md).
+
+
+---
+
+_Vendored from [mattpocock/skills](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills) @ `b843cb5` — MIT License. See [skills/UPSTREAM-CREDITS.md](../UPSTREAM-CREDITS.md) for refresh instructions._

package/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+name: tdd
+description: Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.
+---
+
+# Test-Driven Development
+
+## Philosophy
+
+**Core principle**: Tests should verify behavior through public interfaces, not implementation details. Code can change entirely; tests shouldn't.
+
+**Good tests** are integration-style: they exercise real code paths through public APIs. They describe _what_ the system does, not _how_ it does it. A good test reads like a specification - "user can checkout with valid cart" tells you exactly what capability exists. These tests survive refactors because they don't care about internal structure.
+
+**Bad tests** are coupled to implementation. They mock internal collaborators, test private methods, or verify through external means (like querying a database directly instead of using the interface). The warning sign: your test breaks when you refactor, but behavior hasn't changed. If you rename an internal function and tests fail, those tests were testing implementation, not behavior.
+
+See [tests.md](tests.md) for examples and [mocking.md](mocking.md) for mocking guidelines.
+
+## Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Slices
+
+**DO NOT write all tests first, then all implementation.** This is "horizontal slicing" - treating RED as "write all tests" and GREEN as "write all code."
+
+This produces **crap tests**:
+
+- Tests written in bulk test _imagined_ behavior, not _actual_ behavior
+- You end up testing the _shape_ of things (data structures, function signatures) rather than user-facing behavior
+- Tests become insensitive to real changes - they pass when behavior breaks, fail when behavior is fine
+- You outrun your headlights, committing to test structure before understanding the implementation
+
+**Correct approach**: Vertical slices via tracer bullets. One test → one implementation → repeat. Each test responds to what you learned from the previous cycle. Because you just wrote the code, you know exactly what behavior matters and how to verify it.
+
+```
+WRONG (horizontal):
+  RED:   test1, test2, test3, test4, test5
+  GREEN: impl1, impl2, impl3, impl4, impl5
+
+RIGHT (vertical):
+  RED→GREEN: test1→impl1
+  RED→GREEN: test2→impl2
+  RED→GREEN: test3→impl3
+  ...
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Planning
+
+When exploring the codebase, use the project's domain glossary so that test names and interface vocabulary match the project's language, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+Before writing any code:
+
+- [ ] Confirm with user what interface changes are needed
+- [ ] Confirm with user which behaviors to test (prioritize)
+- [ ] Identify opportunities for [deep modules](deep-modules.md) (small interface, deep implementation)
+- [ ] Design interfaces for [testability](interface-design.md)
+- [ ] List the behaviors to test (not implementation steps)
+- [ ] Get user approval on the plan
+
+Ask: "What should the public interface look like? Which behaviors are most important to test?"
+
+**You can't test everything.** Confirm with the user exactly which behaviors matter most. Focus testing effort on critical paths and complex logic, not every possible edge case.
+
+### 2. Tracer Bullet
+
+Write ONE test that confirms ONE thing about the system:
+
+```
+RED:   Write test for first behavior → test fails
+GREEN: Write minimal code to pass → test passes
+```
+
+This is your tracer bullet - proves the path works end-to-end.
+
+### 3. Incremental Loop
+
+For each remaining behavior:
+
+```
+RED:   Write next test → fails
+GREEN: Minimal code to pass → passes
+```
+
+Rules:
+
+- One test at a time
+- Only enough code to pass current test
+- Don't anticipate future tests
+- Keep tests focused on observable behavior
+
+### 4. Refactor
+
+After all tests pass, look for [refactor candidates](refactoring.md):
+
+- [ ] Extract duplication
+- [ ] Deepen modules (move complexity behind simple interfaces)
+- [ ] Apply SOLID principles where natural
+- [ ] Consider what new code reveals about existing code
+- [ ] Run tests after each refactor step
+
+**Never refactor while RED.** Get to GREEN first.
+
+## Checklist Per Cycle
+
+```
+[ ] Test describes behavior, not implementation
+[ ] Test uses public interface only
+[ ] Test would survive internal refactor
+[ ] Code is minimal for this test
+[ ] No speculative features added
+```
+
+
+---
+
+_Vendored from [mattpocock/skills](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills) @ `b843cb5` — MIT License. See [skills/UPSTREAM-CREDITS.md](../UPSTREAM-CREDITS.md) for refresh instructions._

package/skills/tdd/deep-modules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Deep Modules
+
+From "A Philosophy of Software Design":
+
+**Deep module** = small interface + lots of implementation
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────┐
+│   Small Interface   │  ← Few methods, simple params
+├─────────────────────┤
+│                     │
+│                     │
+│  Deep Implementation│  ← Complex logic hidden
+│                     │
+│                     │
+└─────────────────────┘
+```
+
+**Shallow module** = large interface + little implementation (avoid)
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────┐
+│       Large Interface           │  ← Many methods, complex params
+├─────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Thin Implementation            │  ← Just passes through
+└─────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+When designing interfaces, ask:
+
+- Can I reduce the number of methods?
+- Can I simplify the parameters?
+- Can I hide more complexity inside?

package/skills/tdd/interface-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Interface Design for Testability
+
+Good interfaces make testing natural:
+
+1. **Accept dependencies, don't create them**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function processOrder(order) {
+     const gateway = new StripeGateway();
+   }
+   ```
+
+2. **Return results, don't produce side effects**
+
+   ```typescript
+   // Testable
+   function calculateDiscount(cart): Discount {}
+
+   // Hard to test
+   function applyDiscount(cart): void {
+     cart.total -= discount;
+   }
+   ```
+
+3. **Small surface area**
+   - Fewer methods = fewer tests needed
+   - Fewer params = simpler test setup

package/skills/tdd/mocking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# When to Mock
+
+Mock at **system boundaries** only:
+
+- External APIs (payment, email, etc.)
+- Databases (sometimes - prefer test DB)
+- Time/randomness
+- File system (sometimes)
+
+Don't mock:
+
+- Your own classes/modules
+- Internal collaborators
+- Anything you control
+
+## Designing for Mockability
+
+At system boundaries, design interfaces that are easy to mock:
+
+**1. Use dependency injection**
+
+Pass external dependencies in rather than creating them internally:
+
+```typescript
+// Easy to mock
+function processPayment(order, paymentClient) {
+  return paymentClient.charge(order.total);
+}
+
+// Hard to mock
+function processPayment(order) {
+  const client = new StripeClient(process.env.STRIPE_KEY);
+  return client.charge(order.total);
+}
+```
+
+**2. Prefer SDK-style interfaces over generic fetchers**
+
+Create specific functions for each external operation instead of one generic function with conditional logic:
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Each function is independently mockable
+const api = {
+  getUser: (id) => fetch(`/users/${id}`),
+  getOrders: (userId) => fetch(`/users/${userId}/orders`),
+  createOrder: (data) => fetch('/orders', { method: 'POST', body: data }),
+};
+
+// BAD: Mocking requires conditional logic inside the mock
+const api = {
+  fetch: (endpoint, options) => fetch(endpoint, options),
+};
+```
+
+The SDK approach means:
+- Each mock returns one specific shape
+- No conditional logic in test setup
+- Easier to see which endpoints a test exercises
+- Type safety per endpoint

package/skills/tdd/refactoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Refactor Candidates
+
+After TDD cycle, look for:
+
+- **Duplication** → Extract function/class
+- **Long methods** → Break into private helpers (keep tests on public interface)
+- **Shallow modules** → Combine or deepen
+- **Feature envy** → Move logic to where data lives
+- **Primitive obsession** → Introduce value objects
+- **Existing code** the new code reveals as problematic

package/skills/tdd/tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Good and Bad Tests
+
+## Good Tests
+
+**Integration-style**: Test through real interfaces, not mocks of internal parts.
+
+```typescript
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior
+test("user can checkout with valid cart", async () => {
+  const cart = createCart();
+  cart.add(product);
+  const result = await checkout(cart, paymentMethod);
+  expect(result.status).toBe("confirmed");
+});
+```
+
+Characteristics:
+
+- Tests behavior users/callers care about
+- Uses public API only
+- Survives internal refactors
+- Describes WHAT, not HOW
+- One logical assertion per test
+
+## Bad Tests
+
+**Implementation-detail tests**: Coupled to internal structure.
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Tests implementation details
+test("checkout calls paymentService.process", async () => {
+  const mockPayment = jest.mock(paymentService);
+  await checkout(cart, payment);
+  expect(mockPayment.process).toHaveBeenCalledWith(cart.total);
+});
+```
+
+Red flags:
+
+- Mocking internal collaborators
+- Testing private methods
+- Asserting on call counts/order
+- Test breaks when refactoring without behavior change
+- Test name describes HOW not WHAT
+- Verifying through external means instead of interface
+
+```typescript
+// BAD: Bypasses interface to verify
+test("createUser saves to database", async () => {
+  await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const row = await db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ?", ["Alice"]);
+  expect(row).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// GOOD: Verifies through interface
+test("createUser makes user retrievable", async () => {
+  const user = await createUser({ name: "Alice" });
+  const retrieved = await getUser(user.id);
+  expect(retrieved.name).toBe("Alice");
+});
+```