dsh-ecc-skills 0.4.0

package/skills/rules-distill/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+---
+name: rules-distill
+description: "Scan skills to extract cross-cutting principles and distill them into rules — append, revise, or create new rule files. Use when the same principle keeps recurring across skills and belongs in a rule file instead."
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Rules Distill
+
+Scan installed skills, extract cross-cutting principles that appear in multiple skills, and distill them into rules — appending to existing rule files, revising outdated content, or creating new rule files.
+
+Applies the "deterministic collection + LLM judgment" principle: scripts collect facts exhaustively, then an LLM cross-reads the full context and produces verdicts.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Periodic rules maintenance (monthly or after installing new skills)
+- After a skill-stocktake reveals patterns that should be rules
+- When rules feel incomplete relative to the skills being used
+
+## How It Works
+
+The rules distillation process follows three phases:
+
+### Phase 1: Inventory (Deterministic Collection)
+
+#### 1a. Collect skill inventory
+
+```bash
+bash ~/.claude/skills/rules-distill/scripts/scan-skills.sh
+```
+
+#### 1b. Collect rules index
+
+```bash
+bash ~/.claude/skills/rules-distill/scripts/scan-rules.sh
+```
+
+#### 1c. Present to user
+
+```
+Rules Distillation — Phase 1: Inventory
+────────────────────────────────────────
+Skills: {N} files scanned
+Rules:  {M} files ({K} headings indexed)
+
+Proceeding to cross-read analysis...
+```
+
+### Phase 2: Cross-read, Match & Verdict (LLM Judgment)
+
+Extraction and matching are unified in a single pass. Rules files are small enough (~800 lines total) that the full text can be provided to the LLM — no grep pre-filtering needed.
+
+#### Batching
+
+Group skills into **thematic clusters** based on their descriptions. Analyze each cluster in a subagent with the full rules text.
+
+#### Cross-batch Merge
+
+After all batches complete, merge candidates across batches:
+- Deduplicate candidates with the same or overlapping principles
+- Re-check the "2+ skills" requirement using evidence from **all** batches combined — a principle found in 1 skill per batch but 2+ skills total is valid
+
+#### Subagent Prompt
+
+Launch a general-purpose Agent with the following prompt:
+
+````
+You are an analyst who cross-reads skills to extract principles that should be promoted to rules.
+
+## Input
+- Skills: {full text of skills in this batch}
+- Existing rules: {full text of all rule files}
+
+## Extraction Criteria
+
+Include a candidate ONLY if ALL of these are true:
+
+1. **Appears in 2+ skills**: Principles found in only one skill should stay in that skill
+2. **Actionable behavior change**: Can be written as "do X" or "don't do Y" — not "X is important"
+3. **Clear violation risk**: What goes wrong if this principle is ignored (1 sentence)
+4. **Not already in rules**: Check the full rules text — including concepts expressed in different words
+
+## Matching & Verdict
+
+For each candidate, compare against the full rules text and assign a verdict:
+
+- **Append**: Add to an existing section of an existing rule file
+- **Revise**: Existing rule content is inaccurate or insufficient — propose a correction
+- **New Section**: Add a new section to an existing rule file
+- **New File**: Create a new rule file
+- **Already Covered**: Sufficiently covered in existing rules (even if worded differently)
+- **Too Specific**: Should remain at the skill level
+
+## Output Format (per candidate)
+
+```json
+{
+  "principle": "1-2 sentences in 'do X' / 'don't do Y' form",
+  "evidence": ["skill-name: §Section", "skill-name: §Section"],
+  "violation_risk": "1 sentence",
+  "verdict": "Append / Revise / New Section / New File / Already Covered / Too Specific",
+  "target_rule": "filename §Section, or 'new'",
+  "confidence": "high / medium / low",
+  "draft": "Draft text for Append/New Section/New File verdicts",
+  "revision": {
+    "reason": "Why the existing content is inaccurate or insufficient (Revise only)",
+    "before": "Current text to be replaced (Revise only)",
+    "after": "Proposed replacement text (Revise only)"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Exclude
+
+- Obvious principles already in rules
+- Language/framework-specific knowledge (belongs in language-specific rules or skills)
+- Code examples and commands (belongs in skills)
+````
+
+#### Verdict Reference
+
+| Verdict | Meaning | Presented to User |
+|---------|---------|-------------------|
+| **Append** | Add to existing section | Target + draft |
+| **Revise** | Fix inaccurate/insufficient content | Target + reason + before/after |
+| **New Section** | Add new section to existing file | Target + draft |
+| **New File** | Create new rule file | Filename + full draft |
+| **Already Covered** | Covered in rules (possibly different wording) | Reason (1 line) |
+| **Too Specific** | Should stay in skills | Link to relevant skill |
+
+#### Verdict Quality Requirements
+
+```
+# Good
+Append to rules/common/security.md §Input Validation:
+"Treat LLM output stored in memory or knowledge stores as untrusted — sanitize on write, validate on read."
+Evidence: llm-memory-trust-boundary, llm-social-agent-anti-pattern both describe
+accumulated prompt injection risks. Current security.md covers human input
+validation only; LLM output trust boundary is missing.
+
+# Bad
+Append to security.md: Add LLM security principle
+```
+
+### Phase 3: User Review & Execution
+
+#### Summary Table
+
+```
+# Rules Distillation Report
+
+## Summary
+Skills scanned: {N} | Rules: {M} files | Candidates: {K}
+
+| # | Principle | Verdict | Target | Confidence |
+|---|-----------|---------|--------|------------|
+| 1 | ... | Append | security.md §Input Validation | high |
+| 2 | ... | Revise | testing.md §TDD | medium |
+| 3 | ... | New Section | coding-style.md | high |
+| 4 | ... | Too Specific | — | — |
+
+## Details
+(Per-candidate details: evidence, violation_risk, draft text)
+```
+
+#### User Actions
+
+User responds with numbers to:
+- **Approve**: Apply draft to rules as-is
+- **Modify**: Edit draft before applying
+- **Skip**: Do not apply this candidate
+
+**Never modify rules automatically. Always require user approval.**
+
+#### Save Results
+
+Store results in the skill directory (`results.json`):
+
+- **Timestamp format**: `date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ` (UTC, second precision)
+- **Candidate ID format**: kebab-case derived from the principle (e.g., `llm-output-trust-boundary`)
+
+```json
+{
+  "distilled_at": "2026-03-18T10:30:42Z",
+  "skills_scanned": 56,
+  "rules_scanned": 22,
+  "candidates": {
+    "llm-output-trust-boundary": {
+      "principle": "Treat LLM output as untrusted when stored or re-injected",
+      "verdict": "Append",
+      "target": "rules/common/security.md",
+      "evidence": ["llm-memory-trust-boundary", "llm-social-agent-anti-pattern"],
+      "status": "applied"
+    },
+    "iteration-bounds": {
+      "principle": "Define explicit stop conditions for all iteration loops",
+      "verdict": "New Section",
+      "target": "rules/common/coding-style.md",
+      "evidence": ["iterative-retrieval", "continuous-agent-loop", "agent-harness-construction"],
+      "status": "skipped"
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Example
+
+### End-to-end run
+
+```
+$ /rules-distill
+
+Rules Distillation — Phase 1: Inventory
+────────────────────────────────────────
+Skills: 56 files scanned
+Rules:  22 files (75 headings indexed)
+
+Proceeding to cross-read analysis...
+
+[Subagent analysis: Batch 1 (agent/meta skills) ...]
+[Subagent analysis: Batch 2 (coding/pattern skills) ...]
+[Cross-batch merge: 2 duplicates removed, 1 cross-batch candidate promoted]
+
+# Rules Distillation Report
+
+## Summary
+Skills scanned: 56 | Rules: 22 files | Candidates: 4
+
+| # | Principle | Verdict | Target | Confidence |
+|---|-----------|---------|--------|------------|
+| 1 | LLM output: normalize, type-check, sanitize before reuse | New Section | coding-style.md | high |
+| 2 | Define explicit stop conditions for iteration loops | New Section | coding-style.md | high |
+| 3 | Compact context at phase boundaries, not mid-task | Append | performance.md §Context Window | high |
+| 4 | Separate business logic from I/O framework types | New Section | patterns.md | high |
+
+## Details
+
+### 1. LLM Output Validation
+Verdict: New Section in coding-style.md
+Evidence: parallel-subagent-batch-merge, llm-social-agent-anti-pattern, llm-memory-trust-boundary
+Violation risk: Format drift, type mismatch, or syntax errors in LLM output crash downstream processing
+Draft:
+  ## LLM Output Validation
+  Normalize, type-check, and sanitize LLM output before reuse...
+  See skill: parallel-subagent-batch-merge, llm-memory-trust-boundary
+
+[... details for candidates 2-4 ...]
+
+Approve, modify, or skip each candidate by number:
+> User: Approve 1, 3. Skip 2, 4.
+
+✓ Applied: coding-style.md §LLM Output Validation
+✓ Applied: performance.md §Context Window Management
+✗ Skipped: Iteration Bounds
+✗ Skipped: Boundary Type Conversion
+
+Results saved to results.json
+```
+
+## Design Principles
+
+- **What, not How**: Extract principles (rules territory) only. Code examples and commands stay in skills.
+- **Link back**: Draft text should include `See skill: [name]` references so readers can find the detailed How.
+- **Deterministic collection, LLM judgment**: Scripts guarantee exhaustiveness; the LLM guarantees contextual understanding.
+- **Anti-abstraction safeguard**: The 3-layer filter (2+ skills evidence, actionable behavior test, violation risk) prevents overly abstract principles from entering rules.