jonah-fleet 1.0.0

package/templates/skills/triage/AGENT-BRIEF.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+# Writing Agent Briefs
+
+An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue or PR when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original body and discussion are context: the agent brief is the contract.
+
+The brief states **what the agent should do**, which stretches to both surfaces: for an issue, that's building the change from nothing; for a PR, it's what's left to do *to the existing diff*: finish it, close gaps, address review points. Same principles either way; the PR example below shows the difference.
+
+## Principles
+
+### Durability over precision
+
+The issue may sit in `ready-for-agent` for days or weeks. The codebase will change in the meantime. Write the brief so it stays useful even as files are renamed, moved, or refactored.
+
+- **Do** describe interfaces, types, and behavioral contracts
+- **Do** name specific types, function signatures, or config shapes that the agent should look for or modify
+- **Don't** reference file paths: they go stale
+- **Don't** reference line numbers
+- **Don't** assume the current implementation structure will remain the same
+
+### Behavioral, not procedural
+
+Describe **what** the system should do, not **how** to implement it. The agent will explore the codebase fresh and make its own implementation decisions.
+
+- **Good:** "The `SkillConfig` type should accept an optional `schedule` field of type `CronExpression`"
+- **Bad:** "Open src/types/skill.ts and add a schedule field on line 42"
+- **Good:** "When a user runs `/triage` with no arguments, they should see a summary of issues needing attention"
+- **Bad:** "Add a switch statement in the main handler function"
+
+### Complete acceptance criteria
+
+The agent needs to know when it's done. Every agent brief must have concrete, testable acceptance criteria. Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
+
+- **Good:** "Running `gh issue list --label needs-triage` returns issues that have been through initial classification"
+- **Bad:** "Triage should work correctly"
+
+### Explicit scope boundaries
+
+State what is out of scope. This prevents the agent from gold-plating or making assumptions about adjacent features.
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** bug / enhancement
+**Summary:** one-line description of what needs to happen
+
+**Current behavior:**
+Describe what happens now. For bugs, this is the broken behavior.
+For enhancements, this is the status quo the feature builds on.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Describe what should happen after the agent's work is complete.
+Be specific about edge cases and error conditions.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- `TypeName`: what needs to change and why
+- `functionName()` return type: what it currently returns vs what it should return
+- Config shape: any new configuration options needed
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
+- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 3
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Thing that should NOT be changed or addressed in this issue
+- Adjacent feature that might seem related but is separate
+```
+
+## Examples
+
+### Good agent brief (bug)
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** bug
+**Summary:** Skill description truncation drops mid-word, producing broken output
+
+**Current behavior:**
+When a skill description exceeds 1024 characters, it is truncated at exactly
+1024 characters regardless of word boundaries. This produces descriptions
+that end mid-word (e.g. "Use when the user wants to confi").
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Truncation should break at the last word boundary before 1024 characters
+and append "..." to indicate truncation.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- The `SkillMetadata` type's `description` field: no type change needed,
+  but the validation/processing logic that populates it needs to respect
+  word boundaries
+- Any function that reads SKILL.md frontmatter and extracts the description
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Descriptions under 1024 chars are unchanged
+- [ ] Descriptions over 1024 chars are truncated at the last word boundary
+      before 1024 chars
+- [ ] Truncated descriptions end with "..."
+- [ ] The total length including "..." does not exceed 1024 chars
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Changing the 1024 char limit itself
+- Multi-line description support
+```
+
+### Good agent brief (enhancement)
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** enhancement
+**Summary:** Add `.out-of-scope/` directory support for tracking rejected feature requests
+
+**Current behavior:**
+When a feature request is rejected, the issue is closed with a `wontfix` label
+and a comment. There is no persistent record of the decision or reasoning.
+Future similar requests require the maintainer to recall or search for the
+prior discussion.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+Rejected feature requests should be documented in `.out-of-scope/<concept>.md`
+files that capture the decision, reasoning, and links to all issues that
+requested the feature. When triaging new issues, these files should be
+checked for matches.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- Markdown file format in `.out-of-scope/`: each file should have a
+  `# Concept Name` heading, a `**Decision:**` line, a `**Reason:**` line,
+  and a `**Prior requests:**` list with issue links
+- The triage workflow should read all `.out-of-scope/*.md` files early
+  and match incoming issues against them by concept similarity
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] Closing a feature as wontfix creates/updates a file in `.out-of-scope/`
+- [ ] The file includes the decision, reasoning, and link to the closed issue
+- [ ] If a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists, the new issue is
+      appended to its "Prior requests" list rather than creating a duplicate
+- [ ] During triage, existing `.out-of-scope/` files are checked and surfaced
+      when a new issue matches a prior rejection
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Automated matching (human confirms the match)
+- Reopening previously rejected features
+- Bug reports (only enhancement rejections go to `.out-of-scope/`)
+```
+
+### Good agent brief (PR)
+
+For a PR, "Current behavior" describes the state of the diff, and the brief asks the agent to finish or fix it rather than build from scratch.
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Category:** enhancement
+**Summary:** Finish the contributor's `--json` output flag for `triage list`
+
+**Current behavior:**
+The PR adds a `--json` flag that serializes the issue list to JSON. The happy
+path works and the diff matches the project's command structure. Two gaps
+remain: errors are still printed as human text (not JSON), and the new flag has
+no test coverage.
+
+**Desired behavior:**
+With `--json`, all output (including errors) is well-formed JSON on stdout,
+and the command's exit codes are unchanged. The existing human-readable output
+is untouched when the flag is absent.
+
+**Key interfaces:**
+- The command's error path should emit `{ "error": string }` under `--json`
+  instead of the plain-text error
+- Reuse the existing serializer the PR already added; don't introduce a second
+
+**Acceptance criteria:**
+- [ ] `triage list --json` emits valid JSON for both success and error cases
+- [ ] Exit codes match the non-JSON command
+- [ ] A test covers the `--json` success output and one error case
+- [ ] Default (non-JSON) output is byte-for-byte unchanged
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Adding `--json` to any other command
+- Changing the JSON shape of the success payload the PR already defined
+```
+
+### Bad agent brief
+
+```markdown
+## Agent Brief
+
+**Summary:** Fix the triage bug
+
+**What to do:**
+The triage thing is broken. Look at the main file and fix it.
+The function around line 150 has the issue.
+
+**Files to change:**
+- src/triage/handler.ts (line 150)
+- src/types.ts (line 42)
+```
+
+This is bad because:
+- No category
+- Vague description ("the triage thing is broken")
+- References file paths and line numbers that will go stale
+- No acceptance criteria
+- No scope boundaries
+- No description of current vs desired behavior

package/templates/skills/triage/OUT-OF-SCOPE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Out-of-Scope Knowledge Base
+
+The `.out-of-scope/` directory in a repo stores persistent records of rejected feature requests. It serves two purposes:
+
+1. **Institutional memory**: why a feature was rejected, so the reasoning isn't lost when the issue is closed
+2. **Deduplication**: when a new issue comes in that matches a prior rejection, the skill can surface the previous decision instead of re-litigating it
+
+## Directory structure
+
+```
+.out-of-scope/
+├── dark-mode.md
+├── plugin-system.md
+└── graphql-api.md
+```
+
+One file per **concept**, not per issue. Multiple issues requesting the same thing are grouped under one file.
+
+## File format
+
+The file should be written in a relaxed, readable style, more like a short design document than a database entry. Use paragraphs, code samples, and examples to make the reasoning clear and useful to someone encountering it for the first time.
+
+```markdown
+# Dark Mode
+
+This project does not support dark mode or user-facing theming.
+
+## Why this is out of scope
+
+The rendering pipeline assumes a single color palette defined in
+`ThemeConfig`. Supporting multiple themes would require:
+
+- A theme context provider wrapping the entire component tree
+- Per-component theme-aware style resolution
+- A persistence layer for user theme preferences
+
+This is a significant architectural change that doesn't align with the
+project's focus on content authoring. Theming is a concern for downstream
+consumers who embed or redistribute the output.
+
+```ts
+// The current ThemeConfig interface is not designed for runtime switching:
+interface ThemeConfig {
+  colors: ColorPalette; // single palette, resolved at build time
+  fonts: FontStack;
+}
+```
+
+## Prior requests
+
+- #42: "Add dark mode support"
+- #87: "Night theme for accessibility"
+- #134: "Dark theme option"
+```
+
+### Naming the file
+
+Use a short, descriptive kebab-case name for the concept: `dark-mode.md`, `plugin-system.md`, `graphql-api.md`. The name should be recognizable enough that someone browsing the directory understands what was rejected without opening the file.
+
+### Writing the reason
+
+The reason should be substantive: not "we don't want this" but why. Good reasons reference:
+
+- Project scope or philosophy ("This project focuses on X; theming is a downstream concern")
+- Technical constraints ("Supporting this would require Y, which conflicts with our Z architecture")
+- Strategic decisions ("We chose to use A instead of B because...")
+
+The reason should be durable. Avoid referencing temporary circumstances ("we're too busy right now"); those aren't real rejections, they're deferrals.
+
+## When to check `.out-of-scope/`
+
+During triage (Step 1: Gather context), read all files in `.out-of-scope/`. When evaluating a new issue:
+
+- Check if the request matches an existing out-of-scope concept
+- Matching is by concept similarity, not keyword: "night theme" matches `dark-mode.md`
+- If there's a match, surface it to the maintainer: "This is similar to `.out-of-scope/dark-mode.md`. We rejected this before because [reason]. Do you still feel the same way?"
+
+The maintainer may:
+
+- **Confirm**: the new issue gets added to the existing file's "Prior requests" list, then closed
+- **Reconsider**: the out-of-scope file gets deleted or updated, and the issue proceeds through normal triage
+- **Disagree**: the issues are related but distinct, proceed with normal triage
+
+## When to write to `.out-of-scope/`
+
+Only when an **enhancement** (not a bug) is *rejected* as `wontfix`. This applies to enhancement PRs exactly as it does to issues: a rejected PR is recorded here so the same request doesn't return as fresh code.
+
+Do **not** write here when something is closed as `wontfix` because it's **already implemented**. That's a built feature, not a rejected one; recording it would poison the dedup checks with false rejections. Instead, the closing comment points to where the feature already lives.
+
+The flow:
+
+1. Maintainer decides a feature request is out of scope
+2. Check if a matching `.out-of-scope/` file already exists
+3. If yes: append the new issue to the "Prior requests" list
+4. If no: create a new file with the concept name, decision, reason, and first prior request
+5. Post a comment on the issue explaining the decision and mentioning the `.out-of-scope/` file
+6. Close the issue with the `wontfix` label
+
+## Updating or removing out-of-scope files
+
+If the maintainer changes their mind about a previously rejected concept:
+
+- Delete the `.out-of-scope/` file
+- The skill does not need to reopen old issues; they're historical records
+- The new issue that triggered the reconsideration proceeds through normal triage

package/templates/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+name: triage
+description: Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles, categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Triage
+
+Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.
+
+If this repo treats external pull requests as a request surface (see the issue-tracker config), triage covers them too: **a PR is an issue with attached code**, using the same roles, same states, and same machine, with a few deltas marked "for a PR" below. Resolve a bare `#42` to an issue or PR per the tracker config.
+
+Every comment or issue posted to the issue tracker during triage **must** start with this disclaimer:
+
+```
+> *This was generated by AI during triage.*
+```
+
+## Reference docs
+
+- [AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md): how to write durable agent briefs
+- [OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md): how the `.out-of-scope/` knowledge base works
+
+## Roles
+
+Two **category** roles:
+
+- `bug`: something is broken
+- `enhancement`: new feature or improvement
+
+Five **state** roles:
+
+- `needs-triage`: maintainer needs to evaluate
+- `needs-info`: waiting on reporter for more information
+- `ready-for-agent`: fully specified, ready for an AFK agent
+- `ready-for-human`: needs human implementation
+- `wontfix`: will not be actioned
+
+For a PR, the same states read against the attached code: `ready-for-agent` means a brief is attached and an agent should take the next step on the diff; `ready-for-human` means it's ready for a human to merge.
+
+Every triaged issue should carry exactly one category role and one state role. If state roles conflict, flag it and ask the maintainer before doing anything else.
+
+These are canonical role names. The actual label strings used in the issue tracker may differ. The mapping should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.
+
+State transitions: an unlabeled issue normally goes to `needs-triage` first; from there it moves to `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, or `wontfix`. `needs-info` returns to `needs-triage` once the reporter replies. The maintainer can override at any time; flag transitions that look unusual and ask before proceeding.
+
+## Invocation
+
+The maintainer invokes `/triage` and describes what they want in natural language. Interpret the request and act. Examples:
+
+- "Show me anything that needs my attention"
+- "Let's look at #42" (issue or PR)
+- "Move #42 to ready-for-agent"
+- "What's ready for agents to pick up?"
+
+## Show what needs attention
+
+Query the issue tracker and present three buckets, oldest first:
+
+1. **Unlabeled**: never triaged.
+2. **`needs-triage`**: evaluation in progress.
+3. **`needs-info` with reporter activity since the last triage notes**: needs re-evaluation.
+
+When PRs are in scope, include external PRs in these buckets and tag each line `[PR]` or `[issue]`. Discovery surfaces only *external* PRs (the tracker config defines who counts as external), so a collaborator's in-flight PR is not triage work. This filter is discovery-only; an explicitly named PR is always triaged regardless of author.
+
+Show counts and a one-line summary per item. Let the maintainer pick.
+
+## Triage a specific issue or PR
+
+1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue or PR (body, comments, labels, author, dates; for a PR, the diff too). Parse any prior triage notes so you don't re-ask resolved questions. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary, respecting ADRs in the area. Run two checks against the codebase: (a) **redundancy**: search for an existing implementation of the requested behavior by domain concept (not just the request's wording), and report where you looked. If found, it's an already-implemented `wontfix` (step 5). (b) **prior rejection**: read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any that resembles this request.
+
+2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the request (including whether it's already implemented). Wait for direction.
+
+3. **Verify the claim.** Before any grilling, check that the claim holds up. For a bug, reproduce it from the reporter's steps. For a PR, confirm the diff does what it claims: check it out, run the relevant tests or commands. Report what happened: confirmed (with code path), failed, or insufficient detail (a strong `needs-info` signal). A confirmed verification makes a much stronger agent brief.
+
+4. **Grill (if needed).** If the request needs fleshing out, call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling", and grill it into shape a round of questions at a time, sharpening domain terms and updating `CONTEXT.md`/ADRs inline as decisions land.
+
+5. **Apply the outcome:**
+   - `ready-for-agent`: post an agent brief comment ([AGENT-BRIEF.md](AGENT-BRIEF.md)).
+   - `ready-for-human`: same structure as an agent brief, but note why it can't be delegated (judgment calls, external access, design decisions, manual testing).
+   - `needs-info`: post triage notes (template below).
+   - For `wontfix`, close the issue, with the comment depending on *why*:
+     - **Already implemented**: the change already exists in the codebase. Point to where it lives; do **not** write to `.out-of-scope/` (that KB is for *rejected* requests, not built ones).
+     - **Rejected (bug)**: give a polite explanation, then close.
+     - **Rejected (enhancement)**: write to `.out-of-scope/`, link to it from a comment, then close ([OUT-OF-SCOPE.md](OUT-OF-SCOPE.md)).
+   - `needs-triage`: apply the role. Optional comment if there's partial progress.
+
+## Quick state override
+
+If the maintainer says "move #42 to ready-for-agent", trust them and apply the role directly. Confirm what you're about to do (role changes, comment, close), then act. Skip grilling. If moving to `ready-for-agent` without a grilling session, ask whether they want to write an agent brief.
+
+## Needs-info template
+
+```markdown
+## Triage Notes
+
+**What we've established so far:**
+
+- point 1
+- point 2
+
+**What we still need from you (@reporter):**
+
+- question 1
+- question 2
+```
+
+Capture everything resolved during grilling under "established so far" so the work isn't lost. Questions must be specific and actionable, not "please provide more info".
+
+## Resuming a previous session
+
+If prior triage notes exist on the issue or PR, read them, check whether the reporter has answered any outstanding questions, and present an updated picture before continuing. Don't re-ask resolved questions.

package/templates/skills/triage/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Triage"
+  short_description: "Move issues through triage roles"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/templates/skills/writing-for-agents/SKILL-MECHANICS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Skill mechanics
+
+The skill-specific branch of [`writing-for-agents`](SKILL.md): what changes when the document is a skill (frontmatter, the invocation choice, and router skills). Everything else about writing it is the universal reference in `SKILL.md`.
+
+## Invocation
+
+Two choices, trading the two loads:
+
+- A **model-invoked** skill keeps a `description`, so the agent can fire it autonomously, and other skills can reach it. You can still type its name: model-invocation always _includes_ user reach; a description only ever adds agent discovery, never removes the human's. The description is the skill's top-level context pointer, forced to stay loaded at all times: permanent context load in exchange for discoverability. A model-invoked skill whose content is all reference is also one home for shared reference: another skill can invoke it, so reference needed by several skills lives in one place. Mechanics: omit `disable-model-invocation`, and write a model-facing description carrying the trigger branches (the pointer-writing rules in `SKILL.md` apply in full).
+- A **user-invoked** skill strips the description from the agent's reach: only the human typing its name can invoke it, and no other skill can. Zero context load, but it spends cognitive load: you are the index that must remember it exists. Mechanics: set `disable-model-invocation: true`; the `description` becomes human-facing: a one-line summary, trigger lists stripped.
+
+Pick model-invocation only when the agent must reach the skill on its own, or another skill must. If it only ever fires by hand, make it user-invoked and pay no context load.
+
+Shared reference that two user-invoked skills both need can live in neither: with no descriptions, neither can fire the other. Push it to a plain file outside the skill system: external reference any skill can point at.
+
+## Splitting by invocation
+
+The invocation cut of splitting (the sequence cut lives in `SKILL.md`): split off a model-invoked skill when you have a distinct leading word that should trigger it on its own (a trigger word you actually use in your prompts), or another skill must reach it. You pay context load for the new always-loaded description, so that independent reach has to be worth it.
+
+## Router skills
+
+When user-invoked skills multiply past what you can remember, that piled-up cognitive load is cured by a **router skill**: one user-invoked skill that names the others and when to reach for each, so the human has one skill to remember instead of many. It can only hint, never fire them: user-invoked skills have no description, so nothing but the human can reach them.

package/templates/skills/writing-for-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: writing-for-agents
+description: Writing documents for agents. Use when creating or editing skills, or modifying AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md.
+---
+
+Reference for writing any document an agent consumes: a skill, an `AGENTS.md` / `CLAUDE.md`, a doc reached by a pointer. The packaging differs; the writing does not: the same levers make each one predictable, since the agent takes the same _process_ every run rather than producing the same output.
+
+When the document you're writing is a skill, read [`SKILL-MECHANICS.md`](SKILL-MECHANICS.md) for frontmatter, invocation choice, and router skills.
+
+## Context pointers
+
+A **context pointer** is a reference held in the agent's context that names some out-of-context material and encodes the condition for reaching it. A skill's description is one; a line in `AGENTS.md` naming a doc is the same object. The pointer's _wording_, not its target, decides when the agent reaches the material, and how reliably. A must-have target behind a weakly worded pointer is a variance bug: sharpen the wording first, and inline the material only if sharpening fails.
+
+A pointer does two jobs: state what the material is, and list the **branches** that should trigger reaching it (a branch is a distinct case the document handles, so different runs take different paths through it). Every word of an always-loaded pointer costs on every turn, so it earns even harder pruning than the body:
+
+- **Front-load the leading word**: the pointer is where it does its triggering work.
+- **One trigger per branch.** Synonyms that rename a single branch are one branch written twice; collapse them and keep only genuinely distinct branches.
+- **Cut identity the body already carries.**
+
+## The two loads
+
+Every document and pointer you add spends one of two budgets:
+
+- **Context load** is the cost of always-loaded material on the agent's window: an `AGENTS.md` line, a skill description, anything sitting in context every turn, spending tokens and attention whether or not it fires.
+- **Cognitive load** is the cost on the human: which documents exist and when to reach for each. The human is the index. Not a cost to minimise: it is the price of human agency; spend it where human judgement matters, remove it where it does not.
+
+Material reached only through a pointer escapes context load at the price of the pointer's own line; material with no pointer at all rides entirely on cognitive load.
+
+## Information hierarchy
+
+A document is built from two content types: **steps** (the ordered actions the agent performs) and **reference** (definitions, rules, facts consulted on demand). The two mix freely: all steps (a recipe), all reference (a review's rules, this skill), or both. The core decision is where each piece sits on the **information hierarchy**, a ladder ranked by how immediately the agent needs the material:
+
+1. **In-file step** is the primary tier: what the agent does, in order.
+2. **In-file reference** is consulted on demand. Often a legitimately flat peer-set (every rule of a review on one rung), which is a fine arrangement, not a smell.
+3. **Disclosed reference** is pushed out into a separate file, reached by a context pointer, loaded only when the pointer fires. Spans a sibling file in the same folder through fully external reference that lives anywhere and any document can point at.
+
+Push too little down and the top bloats; push too much and you hide material the agent actually needs. That tension is the whole decision.
+
+**Progressive disclosure** is the move down the ladder (out of the main file and behind a pointer) so the top stays legible. Not primarily a token optimisation: it is how the hierarchy is protected. Branching is the cleanest disclosure test: inline what every branch needs, and push behind a pointer what only some branches reach. When a document has steps, in-file reference that should be disclosed buries them and turns attending to them into a coin-flip: a variance lever, not just a legibility one.
+
+**Co-location** is the within-file companion: where the ladder decides _how far down_ a piece sits, co-location decides _what sits beside it_ once there. Keep a concept's definition, rules, and caveats under one heading rather than scattered, so reading one part brings its neighbours with it. The test: the document should read like documentation written for the agent. Grouped material reads that way; scattered material does not. (Distinct from duplication: that repeats one meaning in two places; scattering fragments one meaning across many.)
+
+**Sprawl** is the failure mode here: a document simply too long, even when every line is live and unique. Attention thins across the excess, and every extra line is one more to keep relevant. The cure is the ladder: disclose reference behind pointers, and split by branch or sequence so each path carries only what it needs.
+
+## Steps and completion criteria
+
+Every step ends on a **completion criterion**, the condition that tells the agent the work is done. Two properties make it a lever:
+
+- **Clarity**: can the agent tell done from not-done? A vague bound ("understanding reached") invites **premature completion**: ending the step before it is genuinely done, attention slipping to _being done_. The visible steps still ahead (the **post-completion steps**) supply the pull; the criterion's clarity is the resistance. Defend in order: **sharpen the bound first** (local and cheap); only if it is irreducibly fuzzy _and_ you observe the rush, hide the later steps by splitting the sequence. Hiding only works across a real context boundary (a hand-off or a subagent dispatch; an inline call leaves the later steps in context and clears nothing).
+- **Demand**: how much it requires. "Every modified model accounted for" forces thorough work where "produce a change list" does not. Demand drives **legwork** (the digging the agent does within the work, latent in the wording rather than written as its own step), and it is not step-bound: "every rule applied" binds a body of flat reference just as "every step done" binds a sequence, which is how an all-reference document still carries an exhaustiveness bar.
+
+The strongest criteria are both checkable and exhaustive.
+
+## When to split
+
+Splitting one document into two spends one of the two loads, so split only when the cut earns it:
+
+- **By sequence**: split a run of steps where the post-completion steps tempt the agent to rush the one in front of it. Keeping them out of view drives more legwork on the current task. Beware the reverse: merging sequences exposes each step's later steps to what follows, inviting premature completion.
+- **By invocation**, skill-specific: see [`SKILL-MECHANICS.md`](SKILL-MECHANICS.md).
+
+## Leading words
+
+A **leading word** is a compact concept already living in the model's pretraining that the agent thinks with while running the document (_lesson_, _fog of war_, _tracer bullets_). Repeated as a token, never as a sentence, it accumulates a distributed definition and anchors a whole region of behaviour in the fewest tokens, by recruiting priors the model already holds. Coining your own works if you define it clearly, but a made-up word recruits no priors: you pay in definition tokens what a pretrained word gives free; reach for an existing word first.
+
+It anchors twice. In the body, _execution_: the agent reaches for the same behaviour every time the word appears, and inside flat reference it focuses attention on a class of thing to look for. In a pointer, _invocation_: when the same word lives in your prompts, your docs, and your codebase, the agent links that shared language to the material and reaches it more reliably.
+
+Hunt for opportunities to refactor with leading words. A triad spelled out at three sites, a pointer spending a sentence to gesture at one idea. Each is a passage begging to collapse into a single token:
+
+- "fast, deterministic, low-overhead" → _tight_ (a _tight_ loop).
+- "a loop you believe in" → _red_, turning a fuzzy gate into a binary observable state (the loop goes _red_ on the bug, or it doesn't).
+
+You win twice: fewer tokens, and a sharper hook for the agent to hang its thinking on. Assume every document is carrying restatements that leading words retire. Go find them.
+
+**Negation** is the failure mode beside this lever: steering by prohibition drags the forbidden behaviour into context and makes it _more_ available, not less. _Don't think of an elephant_, and the elephant is all there is; the negation is a weak modifier the strongly-activated concept overruns, so the ban half-reads as an instruction to do the thing. Prompt the **positive**: state the target behaviour ("write one-line comments") so the banned one is never spoken. A prohibition earns its place only as a hard guardrail you cannot phrase positively; even then, pair it with the positive target so attention lands on what to do.
+
+## Pruning
+
+- Keep each meaning in a **single source of truth**: one authoritative place, so changing the behaviour is a one-place edit. **Duplication** (the same meaning in more than one place) costs maintenance and tokens, and inflates a meaning's prominence on the ladder past its real rank. (The accidental inverse of a leading word, which repeats a token on purpose, never the meaning.)
+- The **environment** is a source of truth too (`package.json` scripts, config files, the directory layout, `--help` output), and a document that restates it is a **cache**: a copy of a lookup, earning its load only when the lookup is expensive. Cache what the agent cannot find by looking: the unwritten convention, the reason behind a choice, the gotcha no config confesses. Leave the one-file, one-command lookups to the environment, where they cannot go stale.
+- Check every line for **relevance**: does it still bear on what the document does? A line loses relevance by never bearing on the task (mere exposition, or a branch that should be disclosed) or by going stale as the behaviour or world it describes changes. Shorter documents are easier to keep relevant. Without a pruning discipline the default fate is **sediment**: stale layers that settle because adding feels safe and removing feels risky, until you must core down through them to find what is still live.
+- Hunt **no-ops** sentence by sentence: an instruction the model already obeys by default pays load to say nothing. The test (does it change behaviour versus the default?) is model-relative, not reader-relative: two people disagreeing about a no-op disagree about the default, and settle it by running the document, not by debate. When a sentence fails, delete the whole sentence rather than trim words from it. The test also grades leading words: a word too weak to beat the default (_be thorough_ when the agent is already thorough-ish) is a no-op, and the fix is a stronger word (_relentless_), not a different technique.

package/templates/skills/writing-for-agents/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Writing for Agents"
+  short_description: "Write documents agents consume"