create-yss-spec 1.0.0

package/template/.codex/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+name: code-review
+description: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
+---
+
+Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:
+
+- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
+- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
+
+Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
+
+The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Pin the fixed point
+
+Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
+
+Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.
+
+Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
+
+### 2. Identify the spec source
+
+Look for the originating spec, in this order:
+
+1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
+2. A path the user passed as an argument.
+3. A PRD/spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
+4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
+
+### 3. Identify the standards sources
+
+Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
+
+On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
+
+- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
+- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
+
+Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:
+
+- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
+- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
+- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
+- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
+- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
+- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
+- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
+- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
+- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
+- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
+- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
+- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
+
+### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
+
+Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.
+
+**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:
+
+- The full diff command and commit list.
+- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
+- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
+
+**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:
+
+- The diff command and commit list.
+- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
+- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."
+
+If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
+
+### 5. Aggregate
+
+Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).
+
+End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.
+
+## Why two axes
+
+A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
+
+- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**
+- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**
+
+Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

package/template/.codex/skills/code-review-process/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: code-review-process
+description: Run the department code review process for GitLab Merge Requests and code changes. Use when asked to perform or prepare code review, review a branch/MR/diff, define reviewer responsibilities, enforce GitLab approval gates, combine manual review with SonarQube/SonarLint/Alibaba Java rules, record review findings, or guide a developer-reviewer feedback loop.
+---
+
+# Code Review Process
+
+This skill turns the provided `代码审查流程规范` PDF into a practical workflow for Codex-assisted code review. Use it to execute review work, prepare MR feedback, define gate checks, or help teams set up a consistent review process.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Identify the review target: MR, branch, diff, commit range, changed files, or proposed patch.
+2. Read `references/review-workflow.md` before reviewing or designing a review flow.
+3. Read `references/automation-and-standards.md` when the task mentions GitLab settings, CI/CD, SonarQube, SonarLint, Alibaba Java rules, or quality gates.
+4. If the review target is Java, also use `$alibaba-java-code-style` when available for rule-level Java findings.
+5. Review in this order:
+   - Gate readiness: MR exists, reviewer assigned, CI/static analysis available, merge target clear.
+   - Correctness and safety: behavioral regressions, security, data consistency, error handling, permissions.
+   - Maintainability: structure, readability, dependency direction, duplicated logic, magic values.
+   - Quality signals: tests, coverage, Sonar findings, lint findings, comments and logging.
+6. Return findings first, ordered by severity. Include exact file/line references where possible, impact, and concrete fix guidance.
+7. Mark unresolved must-fix issues as blocking merge. Allow merge only when mandatory findings are resolved or explicitly accepted by a responsible human.
+
+## Review Loop
+
+Follow the MR loop from the source document:
+
+1. Developer creates a Merge Request.
+2. Developer assigns one or more reviewers.
+3. Reviewer reviews code and records comments, suggestions, and required changes on the MR.
+4. If compliant, merge to the main target branch.
+5. If non-compliant, developer fixes issues and replies on the MR.
+6. Reviewer re-reviews the updated code until it is compliant or explicitly rejected.
+
+## Roles
+
+- Reviewer should be a core senior developer, project development lead, project owner, architect, or similarly responsible engineer.
+- Reviewer combines automated lint/static-analysis results with experience and classifies findings by priority and importance.
+- Developer must reply to and confirm findings. If unclear, the developer must communicate with the reviewer instead of silently ignoring the item.
+- Reviewer is responsible for the merged branch code. Multiple reviewers may review the same MR to reduce conflicts and prevent problematic code from merging.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Use this structure for review results:
+
+```markdown
+**Findings**
+- [Blocker|Major|Minor] [file:line] Problem summary. Impact. Required fix.
+
+**Gate Status**
+- MR/branch:
+- Reviewer:
+- CI/static analysis:
+- Merge decision: approved / changes requested / blocked
+
+**Follow-Up**
+- Items requiring developer reply:
+- Items requiring re-review:
+```
+
+When there are no findings, say that clearly and still mention any residual risk, missing test evidence, or unavailable CI/static-analysis results.
+
+## Source
+
+Based on the user-provided PDF: `代码审查流程规范`, initial version `v1.0.0`, author `朱道明`, document date shown as `2023510`.

package/template/.codex/skills/code-review-process/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Code Review Process"
+  short_description: "Run GitLab-based code review process"
+  default_prompt: "Use $code-review-process to run a GitLab merge-request code review with clear findings, roles, and follow-up."

package/template/.codex/skills/code-review-process/references/automation-and-standards.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Automation And Standards
+
+Use this reference for GitLab quality gates, static-analysis setup, and review standards.
+
+## Standards To Apply
+
+The source document names two primary review standards:
+
+- Alibaba code conventions, especially for Java code.
+- Sonar Way quality rules.
+
+When reviewing Java code, combine this skill with `$alibaba-java-code-style` when available. Treat Sonar findings as signals, then validate impact manually.
+
+## Tooling
+
+Recommended local/static tools:
+
+- SonarLint plugin.
+- Alibaba Java coding rule plugin.
+- SonarQube or equivalent quality management platform.
+
+Recommended CI execution:
+
+- Run static analysis through CI, such as GitLab Runner.
+- Connect GitLab CI results to SonarQube quality reports.
+- Record review results and progress in GitLab MR discussions or a tracking tool.
+
+## GitLab CI With SonarQube
+
+Use this high-level setup when asked to design or check automation:
+
+1. Install and configure SonarQube server.
+2. Configure SonarQube access permissions and credentials.
+3. Add `.gitlab-ci.yml` to the project root.
+4. Add a CI job that runs build, tests, coverage preparation, and Sonar analysis.
+5. Configure GitLab project settings or webhooks to connect analysis results to SonarQube.
+6. Trigger CI by pushing to GitLab.
+7. Review SonarQube quality report before approving merge.
+
+Example Maven job from the source document:
+
+```yaml
+sonarqube:
+  image: maven:latest
+  variables:
+    SONAR_USER_HOME: "${CI_PROJECT_DIR}/.sonar"
+  cache:
+    key: "$CI_JOB_NAME"
+    paths:
+      - .sonar/cache
+  script:
+    - mvn clean org.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin:prepare-agent install sonar:sonar
+  allow_failure: true
+```
+
+Adjust `allow_failure` to project policy. For strict gates, required quality jobs should not be allowed to fail silently.
+
+## Gate Checklist
+
+Before approving merge, confirm:
+
+- MR targets the correct branch.
+- Branch protection requires MR flow.
+- At least one responsible reviewer approved.
+- Required CI jobs passed or failures are explicitly accepted by a responsible human.
+- Static-analysis findings are triaged.
+- Required reviewer discussions are resolved.
+- Developer replied to all blocking/major findings.
+- Fixes have been re-reviewed after the latest push.
+
+## Manual Review Checklist
+
+Check beyond automated tooling:
+
+- Product/requirement intent is preserved.
+- Code does not add circular dependencies, nested dependencies, or unintended transitive dependency risk.
+- Magic values are removed or justified.
+- Layout, UI behavior, API contracts, and product behavior align with the change request.
+- Security-sensitive paths have permission checks and input validation.
+- Error handling and logs help diagnose failures.
+- Tests cover important normal, boundary, and failure paths.
+- Legacy debt is not expanded when the change touches that area.

package/template/.codex/skills/code-review-process/references/review-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# Review Workflow
+
+Use this reference when executing a review, preparing MR feedback, or defining responsibilities.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Code review exists to:
+
+- Improve code quality through collaborative inspection.
+- Reduce defects, outages, and security vulnerabilities before merge.
+- Promote knowledge sharing across team members.
+- Improve team efficiency by helping developers understand project code faster.
+- Raise software security by finding potential vulnerabilities early.
+
+The process applies to department developers and people involved in project development, testing, and release.
+
+## GitLab Enforcement Rules
+
+Configure GitLab so the process is enforceable rather than optional:
+
+- Protect branches so code can merge only after review.
+- Require Merge Requests for all code changes into target branches.
+- Require at least one reviewer approval before merge.
+- Require CI/automated test execution before merge.
+- Assign project reviewers and require their review for relevant changes.
+- Limit merge permission to approved reviewers or maintainers.
+
+## MR Review Steps
+
+1. Developer finishes work on a feature/fix branch.
+2. Developer creates a GitLab Merge Request targeting the correct branch.
+3. Developer assigns one or more reviewers, either specific people or GitLab auto-assignment.
+4. Reviewer reads the code and checks it against review standards.
+5. Reviewer leaves inline comments, discussion notes, and required-change feedback in GitLab.
+6. Developer replies to each item and pushes fixes.
+7. Reviewer rechecks the updated MR.
+8. If compliant, reviewer approves and merges or allows merge according to project permission.
+9. If still non-compliant, continue the fix/re-review loop.
+
+## Review Scope
+
+Set review depth based on complexity and importance. Focus on:
+
+- Readability and maintainability.
+- Security and permission control.
+- Performance and resource usage.
+- Code structure, dependency direction, and module boundaries.
+- Variable names, function names, constants, magic values, comments.
+- Error handling and fallback behavior.
+- Logging quality and operational usefulness.
+- Tests and CI evidence.
+- Historical technical debt touched by the change.
+
+## Finding Severity
+
+Use clear severity to decide whether merge is allowed:
+
+- `Blocker`: must fix before merge. Includes security holes, correctness bugs, data loss risk, failed required CI, broken permission checks, severe dependency/cycle issues, or rule violations that will propagate debt.
+- `Major`: should fix before merge unless a responsible human explicitly accepts the risk. Includes maintainability problems, missing important tests, poor error handling, risky performance regressions, and high-priority Sonar/lint findings.
+- `Minor`: improvement suggestion that does not block merge. Includes naming polish, small readability improvements, optional refactors, or non-critical style issues.
+
+## Reviewer Guidance
+
+- Review changed behavior first, style second.
+- Prefer precise, actionable comments over broad criticism.
+- Include why the issue matters and what fix is expected.
+- Record both required fixes and optional optimization suggestions.
+- Acknowledge good solutions where useful, but do not let encouragement hide blockers.
+- Require developer response on every blocking or major finding.
+- Re-review after fixes and verify the actual patch, not just the reply.
+
+## Developer Guidance
+
+- Keep MRs small enough for meaningful review.
+- Reply to every reviewer item.
+- Push fixes promptly and explain intentional non-fixes.
+- Ask the reviewer when a finding is unclear.
+- Do not resolve discussions without code change or an explicit reviewer agreement.
+
+## Agile Integration
+
+In agile delivery, Code Review is a team responsibility:
+
+- Build a review culture around collaboration and knowledge sharing.
+- Make rules and standards consistent across reviewers.
+- Timebox reviews so they do not block the sprint unnecessarily.
+- Assign responsible reviewers clearly.
+- Encourage developers to participate in review and share experience.

package/template/.codex/skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Deepening
+
+How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
+
+## Dependency categories
+
+When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.
+
+### 1. In-process
+
+Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable — merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
+
+### 2. Local-substitutable
+
+Dependencies that have local test stand-ins (PGLite for Postgres, in-memory filesystem). Deepenable if the stand-in exists. The deepened module is tested with the stand-in running in the test suite. The seam is internal; no port at the module's external interface.
+
+### 3. Remote but owned (Ports & Adapters)
+
+Your own services across a network boundary (microservices, internal APIs). Define a **port** (interface) at the seam. The deep module owns the logic; the transport is injected as an **adapter**. Tests use an in-memory adapter. Production uses an HTTP/gRPC/queue adapter.
+
+Recommendation shape: *"Define a port at the seam, implement an HTTP adapter for production and an in-memory adapter for testing, so the logic sits in one deep module even though it's deployed across a network."*
+
+### 4. True external (Mock)
+
+Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened module takes the external dependency as an injected port; tests provide a mock adapter.
+
+## Seam discipline
+
+- **One adapter means a hypothetical seam. Two adapters means a real one.** Don't introduce a port unless at least two adapters are justified (typically production + test). A single-adapter seam is just indirection.
+- **Internal seams vs external seams.** A deep module can have internal seams (private to its implementation, used by its own tests) as well as the external seam at its interface. Don't expose internal seams through the interface just because tests use them.
+
+## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer
+
+- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist — delete them.
+- Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
+- Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
+- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.

package/template/.codex/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Design It Twice
+
+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 [SKILL.md](SKILL.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 [SKILL.md](SKILL.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/template/.codex/skills/codebase-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+name: codebase-design
+description: Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
+---
+
+# Codebase Design
+
+Design **deep modules**: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface, placed at a clean seam, testable through that interface. Use this language and these principles wherever code is being designed or restructured. The aim is leverage for callers, locality for maintainers, and testability for everyone.
+
+## Glossary
+
+Use these terms exactly — don't substitute "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Consistent language is the whole point.
+
+**Module** — anything with an interface and an implementation. Deliberately scale-agnostic: a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. _Avoid_: unit, component, service.
+
+**Interface** — everything a caller must know to use the module correctly: the type signature, but also invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. _Avoid_: API, signature (too narrow — they 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, **shallow** when the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
+
+**Seam** _(Michael Feathers)_ — a place where you can alter behaviour without editing in that place; the *location* at which a module's interface lives. 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 learn. One implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
+
+**Locality** — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place rather than spreading across callers. Fix once, fixed everywhere.
+
+## Deep vs shallow
+
+**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 an interface, ask:
+
+- Can I reduce the number of methods?
+- Can I simplify the parameters?
+- Can I hide more complexity inside?
+
+## 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, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it 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.
+
+## Designing 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.
+
+## 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**.
+
+## Going deeper
+
+- **Deepening a cluster given its dependencies** — see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md): dependency categories, seam discipline, and replace-don't-layer testing.
+- **Exploring alternative interfaces** — see [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md): spin up parallel sub-agents to design the interface several radically different ways, then compare on depth, locality, and seam placement.

package/template/.codex/skills/competitive-intelligence/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+name: competitive-intelligence
+description: Use when researching competitors, market positioning, pricing, feature gaps, customer sentiment, or category trends before Discovery, PRD, product strategy, or roadmap decisions.
+---
+
+# Competitive Intelligence
+
+Source requested for this project: `anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins`, `sales/skills/competitive-intelligence`.
+
+Use this skill when competitive or market facts are needed to shape product Discovery, PRD scope, positioning, differentiation, pricing assumptions, or roadmap tradeoffs.
+
+## Core Rules
+
+- Browse or verify current public sources before making factual claims about competitors, pricing, features, market position, funding, partnerships, product releases, or customer sentiment.
+- Separate facts, evidence, and inference. Do not present strategy guesses as verified competitor intent.
+- Prefer primary or near-primary sources: official product pages, docs, pricing pages, changelogs, release notes, filings, case studies, status pages, marketplace listings, reputable analyst reports, and dated customer reviews.
+- Record dates for time-sensitive claims. Pricing, packaging, roadmap, customer logos, and feature availability can change quickly.
+- Persistent project outputs should use Chinese body text by default. Keep competitor names, product names, URLs, API names, and quoted identifiers unchanged.
+- Do not bypass paywalls, scrape private systems, or use confidential information. Public evidence only unless the user explicitly provides internal material.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Define the intelligence question:
+   - Which product decision will this inform?
+   - Which competitors or substitute workflows are in scope?
+   - Which markets, user segments, regions, editions, or use cases matter?
+   - What must be decided after the research?
+2. Build an evidence plan:
+   - Official sources for product capabilities and pricing.
+   - Documentation and changelogs for depth and recency.
+   - Reviews, community posts, app marketplaces, and job posts for adoption and pain signals.
+   - Analyst, media, or public filings for market context when relevant.
+3. Capture evidence with source links and dates:
+   - Feature / capability evidence.
+   - Pricing / packaging evidence.
+   - UX / onboarding evidence.
+   - Integration / ecosystem evidence.
+   - Customer segment and positioning evidence.
+   - Complaints, workarounds, or unmet needs.
+4. Synthesize:
+   - Competitor positioning.
+   - Table-stakes capabilities.
+   - Differentiators and defensibility.
+   - Gaps and underserved jobs-to-be-done.
+   - Risks if we copy the competitor too closely.
+   - Product opportunities for PRD or roadmap.
+5. Hand off to lifecycle assets:
+   - Update Discovery findings in `docs/discovery/`.
+   - Create or update a competitor matrix in `docs/discovery/reports/`.
+   - Feed stable user, pain, MVP, non-goal, and success criteria into `grill-with-docs` and `to-prd`.
+   - Record uncertain claims as assumptions, not requirements.
+
+## Output Shape
+
+For a quick brief:
+
+```markdown
+## 竞品情报简报
+
+### 研究问题
+- <本次情报要支持的产品决策>
+
+### 范围
+- 竞品 / 替代方案：<list>
+- 用户 / 市场：<scope>
+- 时间范围：<date>
+
+### 关键结论
+- <fact or inference, clearly labeled>
+
+### 证据表
+| 结论 | 证据 | 来源 | 日期 | 置信度 |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+
+### 竞品矩阵
+| 维度 | 竞品 A | 竞品 B | 我们的机会 |
+|---|---|---|---|
+
+### PRD 输入
+- 用户 / 痛点：
+- MVP 建议：
+- 非目标范围：
+- 验收或验证建议：
+
+### 风险与待验证假设
+- <assumption>
+```
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- Do not treat competitive parity as a product requirement. Convert evidence into user value, MVP boundaries, and testable acceptance criteria.
+- Do not copy competitor UX, text, proprietary workflows, screenshots, or private materials into project artifacts.
+- If sources conflict, show both and mark confidence rather than forcing a false conclusion.
+- If current web access is unavailable, state the limitation and produce only a research plan or hypothesis list.