natureco-cli 5.18.3 → 5.20.0

package/skills/weekly-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+name: weekly-review
+description: Conduct weekly reviews with accomplishments, lessons, and next-week planning
+category: Productivity
+---
+
+# Weekly Review
+
+## Overview
+Conduct weekly reviews with accomplishments, lessons, and next-week planning. This skill helps you apply structured, repeatable methods for consistent results.
+
+## When to Use
+- When you need to apply weekly review best practices
+- When establishing processes or standards for your workflow
+- When training team members on weekly review
+- When automating or optimizing weekly review tasks
+
+## Instructions
+1. **Assess**: Evaluate the current state, requirements, and constraints
+2. **Plan**: Define the approach, steps, and success criteria
+3. **Execute**: Follow the established patterns and best practices
+4. **Verify**: Check results against expected outcomes and quality standards
+5. **Iterate**: Refine based on feedback and lessons learned
+
+## Examples
+```
+User: Help me apply weekly review for my current project
+Assistant: I'll help you apply weekly review step by step...
+```
+
+## Related Skills
+- Use with `workflow` tool for orchestrated execution
+- Combine with `task` tool for delegated processing
+- Reference `system-prompt` for system-level integration

package/skills/workflow-automation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+name: workflow-automation
+description: Automate repetitive workflows using scripts, cron, and no-code tools
+category: Productivity
+---
+
+# Workflow Automation
+
+## Overview
+Automate repetitive workflows using scripts, cron, and no-code tools. This skill helps you apply structured, repeatable methods for consistent results.
+
+## When to Use
+- When you need to apply workflow automation best practices
+- When establishing processes or standards for your workflow
+- When training team members on workflow automation
+- When automating or optimizing workflow automation tasks
+
+## Instructions
+1. **Assess**: Evaluate the current state, requirements, and constraints
+2. **Plan**: Define the approach, steps, and success criteria
+3. **Execute**: Follow the established patterns and best practices
+4. **Verify**: Check results against expected outcomes and quality standards
+5. **Iterate**: Refine based on feedback and lessons learned
+
+## Examples
+```
+User: Help me apply workflow automation for my current project
+Assistant: I'll help you apply workflow automation step by step...
+```
+
+## Related Skills
+- Use with `workflow` tool for orchestrated execution
+- Combine with `task` tool for delegated processing
+- Reference `system-prompt` for system-level integration

package/skills/writing-beats/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: writing-beats
+description: Writing, exploit — assemble raw material into a journey of beats, grounding each term before a beat leans on it.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+<what-to-do>
+
+The user has passed (or will pass) a markdown file of raw material. This is **exploit**: the exploring is done, the pile is fixed — commit to a path through it and mine the pile to fill each beat.
+
+If the user did not say where to save the article, ask once and remember the path.
+
+Then run a beat-by-beat journey, choose-your-own-adventure style:
+
+1. **Establish the prerequisites.** Before any beats, settle with the user what the audience already knows walking in — the concepts that are **grounded** from the start. Everything else must be grounded by a beat before a later beat can use it. See [Grounding](#grounding).
+2. Write 2–3 candidate **starting beats**, drawn from the raw material. Each is a different entry point into the article. Each may only lean on grounded concepts; note what new concepts each one grounds. Show the user the beats before writing to the article file. The user picks one. Preview what beats that pick unlocks — as if the user is seeing a little way down the path.
+3. Once the user picks a starting beat, write **only that beat** to the article file. A beat may be one sentence or several paragraphs — whatever that beat naturally is. Stop there.
+4. Re-read the article file from disk. Then offer 2–3 candidate **next beats** — different directions the journey could pivot to from where the article now stands. Each must be reachable from the current grounded set; note what each one grounds.
+5. Loop steps 3–5 until the article reaches a natural end.
+
+</what-to-do>
+
+<supporting-info>
+
+## Grounding
+
+Every **concept** has to be **grounded** before a beat can lean on it: the audience either walked in knowing it or met it in an earlier beat. A beat that reaches for an ungrounded concept loses the reader — that is the one move the journey can't make. The unit is the concept, not the word for it: a beat can lean on an idea the reader lacks even with no jargon in sight. Where a concept has a name — a **term** — grounding it means landing the idea and the term together.
+
+A concept gets grounded one of two ways:
+
+- **Prerequisite** — grounded before the first beat. The audience brings it. Fixed at the start.
+- **Introduced** — a beat establishes it, and from then on it's grounded for every later beat.
+
+So each beat does two jobs: it **requires** concepts that are already grounded, and it **grounds** new ones. Keep a running list of what's grounded so far, and update it each time a beat lands.
+
+This is what shapes the choose-your-own-adventure. A candidate beat is only reachable if everything it requires is already grounded; picking a beat that grounds concept X unlocks every beat that was waiting on X. When you offer next beats, they must all be reachable from the current grounded set — and say what each one grounds, so the user can see which paths it opens.
+
+The big lever is what you make a prerequisite versus what you ground inside the piece. Demand too much up front and you shut out readers who don't have it; ground too much inside and the early beats drown in definitions. Settle this with the user when you establish prerequisites, and revisit it whenever a tempting beat turns out to require a concept nothing has grounded yet — the fix is either a grounding beat before it, or promoting the concept to a prerequisite.
+
+## What is a beat
+
+A beat is one move in the journey. It does one thing — sets a scene, lands a point, asks a question, drops an aside, twists the angle. Then it stops, leaving the reader at a place where the next beat can pivot.
+
+A beat is sized by what it needs:
+
+- A single sentence if that's all the move is ("And then nothing happened for three weeks.").
+- A short paragraph if the move needs setup.
+- Multiple paragraphs if the beat is a self-contained vignette, argument, or example.
+
+If a "beat" needs five paragraphs and three subheadings, it's not a beat — it's two beats glued together. Split it.
+
+## Pulling from the pile
+
+Pull material from the raw pile to populate each beat. You can paraphrase, split, recombine, or quote. The pile is a quarry.
+
+## Ending the journey
+
+The article ends when the journey is complete — not when the pile is empty. Most piles will have leftover fragments that don't make it in. That is fine; that is the point of having more raw material than you need.
+
+## Writing rhythm
+
+- Append one beat at a time. Never write ahead.
+- Re-read the article file from disk before every write. Preserve user edits absolutely.
+- If the user edits a previous beat substantially, let it change what comes next.
+- If the user says "rewrite that beat" or "go back and try a different beat 3", do it — edit in place, leave the rest alone.
+
+</supporting-info>

package/skills/writing-fragments/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: writing-fragments
+description: Writing, explore — mine raw fragments, no structure yet.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+<what-to-do>
+
+This is pure **explore**: widen the space of what could be written without committing to structure — committing is _exploit_, a separate skill's job. Run a grilling session that produces fragments, interviewing the user relentlessly about whatever they want to write about. Imposing phases, outlines, or article structure is out of scope here.
+
+As fragments emerge from either side of the conversation, append them to a single markdown file.
+
+If the user did not pass a path, ask once where to save the document, then remember it for the rest of the session.
+
+Capture fragments from the very first thing the user says, including the initial prompt.
+
+On first write, put a single H1 at the top with a working title (it can change later) and nothing else — no metadata, no TOC, no date.
+
+</what-to-do>
+
+<supporting-info>
+
+## What is a fragment
+
+A fragment is any piece of text that might survive into the final article. It must be _readable by the author_ — the author can tell what it means — but it does not need to define its terms or be comprehensible to a cold reader. The bar is "is this a piece of good writing?", not "is this a self-contained argument?"
+
+Fragments are deliberately heterogeneous. Examples of what could be a fragment:
+
+- A sharp sentence you'd want to deploy somewhere but don't yet know where.
+- A claim with a one-line justification.
+- A vignette: a thing that happened, a code snippet, a scenario, an analogy.
+- A half-thought: "something about how X feels like Y, work this out later."
+- A quote, a piece of dialogue, an overheard line.
+- A list of related observations that hang together by feel.
+- A complaint, a confession, a punchline.
+- A **leading word** — a compact metaphor or coinage the whole piece can hang on (one term that names the idea, the way _tracer bullets_ or _fog of war_ names a whole pattern).
+
+Of these, the leading word is the most valuable fragment to land. It is load-bearing: name the right one in explore and it shapes the structure, the transitions, and the title later — paying dividends through the entire exploit phase. When the conversation circles a recurring idea, push to coin a word for it.
+
+The novelist's diary is the model: years of unstructured noticings that later get mined for raw material. Fragments are noticings.
+
+## File format
+
+```markdown
+# Working title
+
+A first fragment lives here.
+
+It can be multiple paragraphs. It can include lists, code, quotes — whatever
+shape the fragment naturally takes.
+
+---
+
+A second fragment.
+
+---
+
+> A quoted line that the user wants to keep around.
+
+A reaction to it.
+
+---
+
+- A cluster of related observations
+- That hang together by feel
+- And want to be near each other
+```
+
+Fragments are separated by a horizontal rule (`\n---\n`). No headings inside the body. No tags. No order beyond the order they were added.
+
+## Writing rhythm
+
+Append silently. Don't ask permission for each fragment. Mention what you added in passing ("adding that"), but don't interrupt the conversation with save dialogs.
+
+Before every write: re-read the file from disk. The user may have edited, reordered, or deleted fragments between turns — preserve their changes. Never overwrite the file; only append (or, if the user asks, edit a specific fragment in place).
+
+The user can say "cut the last one", "rewrite that one sharper", "merge those two" at any time. Treat those as first-class instructions.
+
+</supporting-info>

package/skills/writing-great-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: writing-great-skills
+description: Reference for writing and editing skills well — the vocabulary and principles that make a skill predictable.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+A skill exists to wrangle determinism out of a stochastic system. **Predictability** — the agent taking the same _process_ every run, not producing the same output — is the root virtue; every lever below serves it.
+
+**Bold terms** are defined in [`GLOSSARY.md`](GLOSSARY.md); look them up there for the full meaning.
+
+## Invocation
+
+Two choices, trading different costs:
+
+- 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 too). It contributes to **context load** — the description sits in the window every turn. Mechanics: omit `disable-model-invocation`, and write a model-facing description with rich trigger phrasing ("Use when the user wants…, mentions…").
+- A **user-invoked** skill strips the description from the agent's reach: only you, 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.
+
+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.
+
+## Writing the description
+
+A model-invoked **description** does two jobs — state what the skill is, and list the **branches** that should trigger it. Every word increases **context load**, so a description earns even harder pruning than the body:
+
+- **Front-load the skill's leading word** — the description is where it does its invocation work.
+- **One trigger per branch.** Synonyms that rename a single branch are **duplication** — "build features using TDD … asks for test-first development" is one branch written twice. Collapse them; keep only genuinely distinct branches.
+- **Cut identity that's already in the body.** Keep the description to triggers, plus any "when another skill needs…" reach clause.
+
+## Information hierarchy
+
+A skill is built from two content types — **steps** and **reference** — that mix freely: a skill can be all steps, all reference, or both. The core decision is which to use and where each sits on the **information hierarchy**, a ladder ranked by how immediately the agent needs the material:
+
+1. **In-skill step** — an ordered action in `SKILL.md`, the primary tier: what the agent does, in order. Each step ends on a **completion criterion**, the condition that tells the agent the work is done. Make it _checkable_ (can the agent tell done from not-done?) and, where it matters, _exhaustive_ ("every modified model accounted for", not "produce a change list") — a vague criterion invites **premature completion**.
+2. **In-skill reference** — a definition, rule, or fact in `SKILL.md`, consulted on demand. Often a legitimately flat peer-set (every rule of a review on one rung) — a fine arrangement, not a smell. _This skill is all reference._
+3. **External reference** — reference pushed out of `SKILL.md` into a separate file, reached by a **context pointer**, loaded only when the pointer fires. (Spans _disclosed_ reference — a sibling file like `GLOSSARY.md`, still part of the skill — through fully **external reference** that lives outside the skill system and any skill can point at.)
+
+A demanding completion criterion drives thorough **legwork** — the digging the agent does within the work — whether the skill has steps or not, since "every rule applied" binds flat reference just as "every step done" binds a sequence.
+
+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 `SKILL.md` into a linked file — so the top stays legible. Mechanics: a linked `.md` file in the skill folder, named for what it holds (this skill discloses its full definitions to `GLOSSARY.md`). Some skills are used in more than one way, and each distinct way is a **branch** — different runs taking different paths through the skill. Branching is the cleanest disclosure test: inline what every branch needs, and push behind a pointer what only some branches reach. A **context pointer**'s _wording_, not its target, decides when and how reliably the agent reaches the material.
+
+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.
+
+## When to split
+
+**Granularity** is how finely you divide skills, and each cut spends one of the two loads, so split only when the cut earns it. Two cuts:
+
+- **By invocation** — split off a **model-invoked** skill when you have a distinct **leading word** that should trigger it on its own, 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.
+- **By sequence** — split a run of **steps** when the steps still ahead (a step's **post-completion steps**) tempt the agent to rush the one in front of it (**premature completion**). Keeping them out of view encourages the agent to do more **legwork** on the current task.
+
+## Pruning
+
+Keep each meaning in a **single source of truth**: one authoritative place, so changing the behaviour is a one-place edit.
+
+Check every line for **relevance**: does it still bear on what the skill does?
+
+Then hunt **no-ops** sentence by sentence, not just line by line: run the no-op test on each sentence in isolation, and when one fails, delete the whole sentence rather than trim words from it. Be aggressive — most prose that fails should go, not be rewritten.
+
+## Leading words
+
+A **leading word** is a compact concept already living in the model's pretraining that the agent thinks with while running the skill (e.g. _lesson_, _fog of war_, _tracer bullets_). Repeated throughout the text (though not necessarily - a strong leading word might only be needed once), it accumulates a distributed definition and anchors a whole region of behaviour in the fewest tokens, by recruiting priors the model already holds.
+
+It serves predictability twice. In the body it anchors _execution_: the agent reaches for the same behaviour every time the word appears. In the description it anchors _invocation_: when the same word lives in your prompts, docs, and code, the agent links that shared language to the skill and fires it more reliably.
+
+Hunt for opportunities to refactor skills to use leading words. A triad spelled out at three sites (**duplication**), a description spending a sentence to gesture at one idea — each is a passage begging to **collapse** into a single token. Examples include:
+
+- "fast, deterministic, low-overhead" -> _tight_ — one quality restated across a phase — into a single pretrained word (a _tight_ loop).
+- "a loop you believe in" -> _red_ — converts a fuzzy gate into a binary observable state (the loop goes _red_ on the bug, or it doesn't).
+
+You win twice over: fewer tokens, _and_ a sharper hook for the agent to hang its thinking on. Assume every skill is carrying restatements that leading words retire — go find them.
+
+## Failure modes
+
+Use these to diagnose issues the user may be having with the skill.
+
+- **Premature completion** — ending a step before it's genuinely done, attention slipping to _being done_. Defence, in order: sharpen the completion criterion first (cheap, local); only if it is irreducibly fuzzy _and_ you observe the rush, hide the post-completion steps by splitting (the sequence cut).
+- **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.
+- **Sediment** — stale layers that settle because adding feels safe and removing feels risky. The default fate of any skill without a pruning discipline.
+- **Sprawl** — a skill simply too long, even when every line is live and unique. Hurts readability and maintainability and wastes tokens. The cure is the ladder: disclose **reference** behind pointers, and split by **branch** or sequence so each path carries only what it needs.
+- **No-op** — a line the model already obeys by default, so you pay load to say nothing. The test: does it change behaviour versus the default? A weak leading word (_be thorough_ when the agent is already thorough-ish) is a no-op; the fix is a stronger word (_relentless_), not a different technique.

package/skills/writing-guidelines/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+name: writing-guidelines
+description: Review docs/prose for Writing Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my docs", "check writing style", "audit prose", "review docs voice and tone", or "check this page against the writing handbook".
+metadata:
+  author: vercel
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  argument-hint: <file-or-pattern>
+---
+
+# Writing Guidelines
+
+Review files for compliance with Writing Guidelines.
+
+## How It Works
+
+1. Fetch the latest guidelines from the source URL below
+2. Read the specified files (or prompt user for files/pattern)
+3. Check against all rules in the fetched guidelines
+4. Output findings in the terse `file:line` format
+
+## Guidelines Source
+
+Fetch fresh guidelines before each review:
+
+```
+https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vercel-labs/writing-guidelines/main/command.md
+```
+
+Use WebFetch to retrieve the latest rules. The fetched content contains all the rules and output format instructions.
+
+## Usage
+
+When a user provides a file or pattern argument:
+1. Fetch guidelines from the source URL above
+2. Read the specified files
+3. Apply all rules from the fetched guidelines
+4. Output findings using the format specified in the guidelines
+
+If no files specified, ask the user which files to review.

package/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+---
+name: writing-plans
+description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
+---
+
+# Writing Plans
+
+## Overview
+
+Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
+
+Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
+
+**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.
+
+**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+
+## Scope Check
+
+If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+
+## File Structure
+
+Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+
+- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
+- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
+- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
+- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+
+This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
+
+## Task Right-Sizing
+
+A task is the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a
+fresh reviewer's gate. When drawing task boundaries: fold setup,
+configuration, scaffolding, and documentation steps into the task whose
+deliverable needs them; split only where a reviewer could meaningfully
+reject one task while approving its neighbor. Each task ends with an
+independently testable deliverable.
+
+## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
+
+**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
+- "Write the failing test" - step
+- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
+- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
+- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
+- "Commit" - step
+
+## Plan Document Header
+
+**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
+
+```markdown
+# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
+
+**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
+
+**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
+
+## Global Constraints
+
+[The spec's project-wide requirements — version floors, dependency limits,
+naming and copy rules, platform requirements — one line each, with exact
+values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly
+include this section.]
+
+---
+```
+
+## Task Structure
+
+````markdown
+### Task N: [Component Name]
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
+- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
+- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
+
+**Interfaces:**
+- Consumes: [what this task uses from earlier tasks — exact signatures]
+- Produces: [what later tasks rely on — exact function names, parameter
+  and return types. A task's implementer sees only their own task; this
+  block is how they learn the names and types neighboring tasks use.]
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
+
+```python
+def test_specific_behavior():
+    result = function(input)
+    assert result == expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
+
+```python
+def function(input):
+    return expected
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
+
+Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
+Expected: PASS
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
+
+```bash
+git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
+git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
+```
+````
+
+## No Placeholders
+
+Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
+- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
+- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
+- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
+- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
+- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
+- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
+
+## Remember
+- Exact file paths always
+- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
+- Exact commands with expected output
+- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
+
+## Self-Review
+
+After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
+
+**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
+
+**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
+
+**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
+
+If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
+
+## Execution Handoff
+
+After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
+
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
+
+**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
+
+**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
+
+**Which approach?"**
+
+**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
+- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
+
+**If Inline Execution chosen:**
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
+- Batch execution with checkpoints for review

package/skills/writing-shape/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: writing-shape
+description: Writing, exploit — shape raw material into an article, paragraph by paragraph.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+<what-to-do>
+
+The user has passed (or will pass) a markdown file of raw material. Treat it as the input pile — anything from a tidy list of fragments to a wall of unstructured prose to a transcript. The format does not matter. Read it end-to-end before doing anything else.
+
+Then run a shaping session that produces a separate article document. This is **exploit**: the exploring is done, the pile is fixed — commit to a structure and mine the pile to fill it. Do not edit the raw material file — it is read-only to this skill.
+
+If the user did not say where to save the article, ask once and remember the path.
+
+</what-to-do>
+
+<supporting-info>
+
+## The loop
+
+1. **Read the pile.** Read the input file in full. Form a sense of what's in it.
+2. **Establish the prerequisites.** Settle with the user what the reader knows walking in — the concepts that are **grounded** from the start. Everything else must be grounded by a block before a later block can lean on it. See [Grounding](#grounding).
+3. **Draft 2–3 candidate openings.** Each opening should imply a different thesis or angle for the article. Show all of them. Force the user to pick or compose a hybrid. The chosen opening defines what the rest of the article must do.
+4. **Grow paragraph by paragraph.** After the opening lands, ask "given this opening, what does the reader need to hear next?" Pull material from the pile to answer. The next block may only lean on grounded concepts, and grounds new ones as it lands. Argue about the form the next block takes — a paragraph, a list, a table, a callout, a quote, a code block. Each format choice should be deliberate and defensible.
+5. **Append to the article file as you go.** Don't batch. Write each agreed paragraph or block immediately so the user can see the article taking shape.
+6. **Loop step 4 until the article is done.** The user decides when it's done.
+
+## Grounding
+
+Every **concept** has to be **grounded** before a block can lean on it: the reader either walked in knowing it or met it in an earlier block. A block that reaches for an ungrounded concept loses the reader. The unit is the concept, not the word for it — a block can lean on an idea the reader lacks even with no jargon in sight. Where a concept has a name — a **term** — grounding it means landing the idea and the term together.
+
+A concept gets grounded one of two ways:
+
+- **Prerequisite** — grounded before the opening. The reader brings it. Fixed at the start.
+- **Introduced** — a block establishes it, and from then on it's grounded for the rest of the article.
+
+Keep a running list of what's grounded. When you ask "what does the reader need to hear next?", an ungrounded concept the next move needs is itself the answer: ground it first — here or in an earlier block — or you can't make the move. This is the gap-naming of [Pulling from the pile](#pulling-from-the-pile) one level up: there the pile is missing material; here the article is missing a foundation.
+
+The lever is what you make a prerequisite versus what you ground inside the article. Demand too much up front and you shut readers out; ground too much inside and the opening drowns in definitions. Settle it with the user when you establish prerequisites.
+
+## Conversational feel
+
+This is a grilling session inverted. In ideation, the question was "what are you actually noticing?" Here it's "what is this article actually arguing, and in what order does the reader need to hear it?" Push back. Refuse to let weak transitions slide. If a paragraph doesn't earn its place, cut it.
+
+Specific moves to keep using:
+
+- "What does this paragraph do for the reader that the previous one didn't?"
+- "If I cut this, what breaks?"
+- "Is this prose, or should it be a list? Why prose?"
+- "This sentence is doing two jobs — split it or pick one."
+- "The opening promised X. We've drifted to Y. Either re-thread it or change the opening."
+
+## Pulling from the pile
+
+Treat the raw material as a quarry, not a script. Pull a fragment, rework it to fit the surrounding paragraph, and place it. A fragment may be split across multiple paragraphs, merged with another, or paraphrased. The pile's job is to be mined; the article's job is to read as one voice.
+
+If the pile lacks something the article needs, name the gap explicitly: "We need an example here and the pile doesn't have one — give me one now or we cut this section."
+
+## Format arguments to actually have
+
+When choosing how to render a block, weigh these tradeoffs out loud with the user, not silently:
+
+- **Prose vs. list.** Prose carries argument; lists carry parallel items. If items aren't truly parallel, prose is better. If they are, a list is faster to scan.
+- **Inline vs. callout.** Tips, warnings, and asides go in callouts (`> [!TIP]`, `> [!NOTE]`) — but only if they'd genuinely derail the main argument inline. Otherwise leave them inline.
+- **Table vs. repeated structure.** If the same shape repeats 3+ times with the same fields, a table. Otherwise prose with bold leads.
+- **Quote vs. paraphrase.** Quote when the original wording is the point. Paraphrase when only the idea matters.
+- **Code block vs. inline code.** Multi-line, runnable, or illustrative → block. Single token or identifier → inline.
+
+## Writing rhythm
+
+Append to the article file as each block is agreed. Re-read the file from disk before every write — the user may have edited between turns. Never overwrite blindly. If the user wants a paragraph rewritten, edit that specific paragraph in place; leave the rest alone.
+
+## Out of scope
+
+- Mining for new fragments that aren't in the pile (handle gaps as in "Pulling from the pile").
+- Editing the raw material file.
+- Publishing, formatting for a specific platform, or adding frontmatter the user didn't ask for.
+
+</supporting-info>