self-evolve-framework 1.1.0 → 1.2.0

package/template/skills/to-prd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,74 +0,0 @@
----
-name: to-prd
-description: Turn the current conversation context into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker. Use when user wants to create a PRD from the current context.
----
-
-This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a PRD. Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know.
-
-The issue tracker and triage label vocabulary should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
-
-## Process
-
-1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the PRD, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.
-
-2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can.
-
-Check with the user that these seams match their expectations.
-
-3. Write the PRD using the template below, then publish it to the project issue tracker. Apply the `ready-for-agent` triage label - no need for additional triage.
-
-<prd-template>
-
-## Problem Statement
-
-The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.
-
-## Solution
-
-The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.
-
-## User Stories
-
-A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:
-
-1. As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>
-
-<user-story-example>
-1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending
-</user-story-example>
-
-This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.
-
-## Implementation Decisions
-
-A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
-
-- The modules that will be built/modified
-- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
-- Technical clarifications from the developer
-- Architectural decisions
-- Schema changes
-- API contracts
-- Specific interactions
-
-Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
-
-Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
-
-## Testing Decisions
-
-A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
-
-- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
-- Which modules will be tested
-- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)
-
-## Out of Scope
-
-A description of the things that are out of scope for this PRD.
-
-## Further Notes
-
-Any further notes about the feature.
-
-</prd-template>

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

@@ -1,168 +0,0 @@
-# Writing Agent Briefs
-
-An agent brief is a structured comment posted on a GitHub issue when it moves to `ready-for-agent`. It is the authoritative specification that an AFK agent will work from. The original issue body and discussion are context — the agent brief is the contract.
-
-## 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/`)
-```
-
-### 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/template/skills/triage/OUT-OF-SCOPE.md

@@ -1,101 +0,0 @@
-# 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`. 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/template/skills/triage/SKILL.md

@@ -1,103 +0,0 @@
----
-name: triage
-description: Triage issues through a state machine driven by triage roles. Use when user wants to create an issue, triage issues, review incoming bugs or feature requests, prepare issues for an AFK agent, or manage issue workflow.
----
-
-# Triage
-
-Move issues on the project issue tracker through a small state machine of triage roles.
-
-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
-
-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 - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if not.
-
-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"
-- "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.
-
-Show counts and a one-line summary per issue. Let the maintainer pick.
-
-## Triage a specific issue
-
-1. **Gather context.** Read the full issue (body, comments, labels, reporter, dates). 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. Read `.out-of-scope/*.md` and surface any prior rejection that resembles this issue.
-
-2. **Recommend.** Tell the maintainer your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary relevant to the issue. Wait for direction.
-
-3. **Reproduce (bugs only).** Before any grilling, attempt reproduction: read the reporter's steps, trace the relevant code, run tests or commands. Report what happened — successful repro with code path, failed repro, or insufficient detail (a strong `needs-info` signal). A confirmed repro makes a much stronger agent brief.
-
-4. **Grill (if needed).** If the issue needs fleshing out, run a `/grill-with-docs` session.
-
-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).
-   - `wontfix` (bug) — polite explanation, then close.
-   - `wontfix` (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, 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/template/skills/ubiquitous-language/SKILL.md

@@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
----
-name: ubiquitous-language
-description: Extract a DDD-style ubiquitous language glossary from the current conversation, flagging ambiguities and proposing canonical terms. Saves to UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md. Use when user wants to define domain terms, build a glossary, harden terminology, create a ubiquitous language, or mentions "domain model" or "DDD".
-disable-model-invocation: true
----
-
-# Ubiquitous Language
-
-Extract and formalize domain terminology from the current conversation into a consistent glossary, saved to a local file.
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Scan the conversation** for domain-relevant nouns, verbs, and concepts
-2. **Identify problems**:
-   - Same word used for different concepts (ambiguity)
-   - Different words used for the same concept (synonyms)
-   - Vague or overloaded terms
-3. **Propose a canonical glossary** with opinionated term choices
-4. **Write to `UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md`** in the working directory using the format below
-5. **Output a summary** inline in the conversation
-
-## Output Format
-
-Write a `UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md` file with this structure:
-
-```md
-# Ubiquitous Language
-
-## Order lifecycle
-
-| Term        | Definition                                              | Aliases to avoid      |
-| ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- |
-| **Order**   | A customer's request to purchase one or more items      | Purchase, transaction |
-| **Invoice** | A request for payment sent to a customer after delivery | Bill, payment request |
-
-## People
-
-| Term         | Definition                                  | Aliases to avoid       |
-| ------------ | ------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- |
-| **Customer** | A person or organization that places orders | Client, buyer, account |
-| **User**     | An authentication identity in the system    | Login, account         |
-
-## Relationships
-
-- An **Invoice** belongs to exactly one **Customer**
-- An **Order** produces one or more **Invoices**
-
-## Example dialogue
-
-> **Dev:** "When a **Customer** places an **Order**, do we create the **Invoice** immediately?"
-> **Domain expert:** "No — an **Invoice** is only generated once a **Fulfillment** is confirmed. A single **Order** can produce multiple **Invoices** if items ship in separate **Shipments**."
-> **Dev:** "So if a **Shipment** is cancelled before dispatch, no **Invoice** exists for it?"
-> **Domain expert:** "Exactly. The **Invoice** lifecycle is tied to the **Fulfillment**, not the **Order**."
-
-## Flagged ambiguities
-
-- "account" was used to mean both **Customer** and **User** — these are distinct concepts: a **Customer** places orders, while a **User** is an authentication identity that may or may not represent a **Customer**.
-```
-
-## Rules
-
-- **Be opinionated.** When multiple words exist for the same concept, pick the best one and list the others as aliases to avoid.
-- **Flag conflicts explicitly.** If a term is used ambiguously in the conversation, call it out in the "Flagged ambiguities" section with a clear recommendation.
-- **Only include terms relevant for domain experts.** Skip the names of modules or classes unless they have meaning in the domain language.
-- **Keep definitions tight.** One sentence max. Define what it IS, not what it does.
-- **Show relationships.** Use bold term names and express cardinality where obvious.
-- **Only include domain terms.** Skip generic programming concepts (array, function, endpoint) unless they have domain-specific meaning.
-- **Group terms into multiple tables** when natural clusters emerge (e.g. by subdomain, lifecycle, or actor). Each group gets its own heading and table. If all terms belong to a single cohesive domain, one table is fine — don't force groupings.
-- **Write an example dialogue.** A short conversation (3-5 exchanges) between a dev and a domain expert that demonstrates how the terms interact naturally. The dialogue should clarify boundaries between related concepts and show terms being used precisely.
-
-<example>
-
-## Example dialogue
-
-> **Dev:** "How do I test the **sync service** without Docker?"
-
-> **Domain expert:** "Provide the **filesystem layer** instead of the **Docker layer**. It implements the same **Sandbox service** interface but uses a local directory as the **sandbox**."
-
-> **Dev:** "So **sync-in** still creates a **bundle** and unpacks it?"
-
-> **Domain expert:** "Exactly. The **sync service** doesn't know which layer it's talking to. It calls `exec` and `copyIn` — the **filesystem layer** just runs those as local shell commands."
-
-</example>
-
-## Re-running
-
-When invoked again in the same conversation:
-
-1. Read the existing `UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md`
-2. Incorporate any new terms from subsequent discussion
-3. Update definitions if understanding has evolved
-4. Re-flag any new ambiguities
-5. Rewrite the example dialogue to incorporate new terms

package/template/skills/ver/SKILL.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
----
-name: ver
-description: 执行版本同步脚本（npm run ver），自动分析 git 提交记录按语义化版本规则升级版本号。当用户说"升级版本""bump version""运行版本同步"或类似含义时触发。
-argument-hint: "可选：手动指定版本号，如 0.2.0"
----
-
-# 版本同步 (ver)
-
-执行 `scripts/sync-version.js` 版本同步脚本。
-
-## 调用方式
-
-### 自动分析（默认）
-```
-npm run ver
-```
-- 分析自最近 tag 以来的 git 提交记录
-- 按 Conventional Commits 类型决定升级幅度：BREAKING → major, feat → minor, fix → patch
-- docs/refactor/chore → 不升版
-- 开发分支自动追加 `-dev` 后缀，强制 PATCH 升级，跳过 git tag 和 commit
-- master 分支自动剥离 `-dev` 后缀后分析
-- 同步 `package.json` / `tauri.conf.json` / `Cargo.toml` 三个文件
-- 防重复机制：检查最近提交和 tag 是否已存在
-
-### 手动指定版本
-```
-npm run ver -- X.Y.Z
-```
-- 直接设置指定版本号
-- 开发分支自动追加 `-dev` 后缀
-
-## 同步的文件
-
-| 文件 | 说明 |
-|------|------|
-| `package.json` | `version` 字段 |
-| `src-tauri/tauri.conf.json` | `version` 字段 |
-| `src-tauri/Cargo.toml` | `[package]` 下的 `version` 行 |
-
-## 输出说明
-
-脚本执行后会打印：
-- 当前分支和版本
-- 提交统计（BREAKING/feat/fix/other）
-- 升降级类型和结果版本
-- 文件同步状态
-- git tag 创建状态（master 分支）
-
-## 版本规则
-
-| Commit 类型 | 版本变动 |
-|-------------|---------|
-| BREAKING CHANGE | 🔺 major |
-| feat | 🔺 minor |
-| fix | 🔺 patch |
-| docs/refactor/chore | ❌ 不升版 |
-
-## 边界行为
-
-- 仅 webstorm/idea 提交（`^Merge branch` 等合并提交）不会影响版本
-- 开发分支（非 main/master）仅允许 PATCH 升级，合并到 main 后再完整升版
-- 行尾已统一处理：Cargo.toml → LF，tauri.conf.json → LF，package.json → CRLF（兼容其他工具）