jb/shd.build
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 4 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Adding some skills and also updating AGENTS.md to use opensrc

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
jb
2026-07-31 02:08:57 -04:00
parent 4de3e1cc2c
commit 5859f84034
5 changed files with 327 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.agents/skills/code-structure/SKILL.md
+116
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
---
name: code-structure
description: Use when multiple workflows duplicate the same operational logic, when deciding what belongs in actions vs shared services, or when refactoring repeated operational blocks across domain flows. Use when adding new features that share mechanics with existing ones.
---
# Service Layer Architecture
## Overview
**Two-layer separation:** Actions orchestrate domain rules (the "why/when"), while a service layer centralizes reusable operational mechanics (the "how").
This prevents duplicated code, inconsistent behavior, and bugs fixed in one path but not others.
## When to Use
- Multiple callers need the same low-level operation (sandbox creation, email sending, payment processing)
- You're copy-pasting operational logic between action files
- A bug fix in one workflow doesn't propagate to others doing the same thing
- Adding a new feature that shares mechanics with existing flows
**Don't use when:** Logic is truly domain-specific and used by only one caller.
## Core Pattern
```
Orchestration Layer (Actions) Service Layer (Shared Mechanics)
├── owns business rules ├── owns reusable operations
├── owns state transitions ├── owns provider/SDK interactions
├── owns auth/ownership checks ├── owns command execution details
├── owns failure classification ├── owns health checks / readiness
├── owns retries / user-facing errors └── returns structured results
└── calls service functions
```
**Rule of thumb:**
- "What this product flow means" → keep in actions
- "How to do this operation reliably" → move to service layer
## Quick Reference
| Design Principle | Do | Don't |
|---|---|---|
| API shape | Composable capability blocks | One giant "do everything" method |
| Inputs/outputs | Explicit params, structured returns | Hidden global state, reaching into DB |
| Migration | Extract one block, replace one caller, verify, then migrate rest | Refactor everything at once |
| Domain logic | Keep auth, policy, error classification in actions | Let service mutate domain state directly |
| Extraction trigger | Logic repeated across 2+ callers | Logic used once (over-abstraction) |
## Designing Service Functions
Design as **capability blocks**, not monoliths:
```ts
// Good: composable, each caller chooses what to use
createManagedSandbox(...)
prepareRepo(...)
detectPackageManager(...)
installDependencies(...)
runBuildCommand(...)
startSandboxRuntime(...)
```
Each function should:
- Accept all required data as **explicit parameters**
- Return **structured outputs** (e.g., `{ ready, previewUrl, proxyPort }`)
- Never reach into database/state directly
- Make failure explicit (structured results, not swallowed errors)
This lets callers choose strict vs relaxed behavior per flow.
## Migration Checklist
When extracting shared logic:
1. Write the flow in action code first (clear behavior)
2. Mark repeated operational chunks across callers
3. Extract **only** repeated, non-domain chunks to service
4. Replace one caller → verify → replace remaining callers
5. Keep domain policy in actions (auth, status transitions, error classification)
6. Run verification: typecheck, lint, confirm all flows still work
## Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Problem |
|---|---|
| **God service** | One huge function hides all control flow |
| **Leaky service** | Service mutates database tables directly |
| **Inconsistent API** | Each function uses different argument styles and error semantics |
| **Over-abstraction** | Extracting logic used by only one caller |
## Example: Email Service (Simple)
```ts
// emailService.ts — shared mechanics
export async function sendWelcomeEmail(params: { to: string; name: string }) {
const html = `<h1>Welcome ${params.name}</h1>`;
await emailProvider.send(params.to, "Welcome", html);
}
// userSignup.ts — orchestration (owns WHEN to send)
if (user.marketingOptIn) {
await sendWelcomeEmail({ to: user.email, name: user.name });
}
// adminInvite.ts — orchestration (different business rule, same mechanic)
await sendWelcomeEmail({ to: invitee.email, name: invitee.name });
```
## Mental Model
```
New feature? → Write in action first → See repeated ops? → Extract to service
→ No repetition? → Keep in action
```
Your architecture in one sentence: **Actions orchestrate domain rules, while the service layer centralizes reusable operational mechanics with a composable, explicit-input API.**
.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md
+123
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
# HTML Report Format
The architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the OS temp directory. Tailwind and Mermaid both come from CDNs. Mermaid handles graph-shaped diagrams reliably; hand-built divs and inline SVG handle the more editorial visuals (mass diagrams, cross-sections). Mix the two — don't lean on Mermaid for everything, it'll start to look generic.
## Scaffold
```html
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<title>Architecture review — {{repo name}}</title>
<script src="https://cdn.tailwindcss.com"></script>
<script type="module">
import mermaid from "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mermaid@11/dist/mermaid.esm.min.mjs";
mermaid.initialize({ startOnLoad: true, theme: "neutral", securityLevel: "loose" });
</script>
<style>
/* small custom layer for things Tailwind doesn't cover cleanly:
dashed seam lines, hand-drawn-feeling arrow heads, etc. */
.seam { stroke-dasharray: 4 4; }
.leak { stroke: #dc2626; }
.deep { background: linear-gradient(135deg, #0f172a, #1e293b); }
</style>
</head>
<body class="bg-stone-50 text-slate-900 font-sans">
<main class="max-w-5xl mx-auto px-6 py-12 space-y-12">
<header>...</header>
<section id="candidates" class="space-y-10">...</section>
<section id="top-recommendation">...</section>
</main>
</body>
</html>
```
## Header
Repo name, date, and a compact legend: solid box = module, dashed line = seam, red arrow = leakage, thick dark box = deep module. No introduction paragraph — straight into the candidates.
## Candidate card
The diagrams carry the weight. Prose is sparse, plain, and uses the glossary terms (from the `/codebase-design` skill) without ceremony.
Each candidate is one `<article>`:
- **Title** — short, names the deepening (e.g. "Collapse the Order intake pipeline").
- **Badge row** — recommendation strength (`Strong` = emerald, `Worth exploring` = amber, `Speculative` = slate), plus a tag for the dependency category (`in-process`, `local-substitutable`, `ports & adapters`, `mock`).
- **Files** — monospaced list, `font-mono text-sm`.
- **Before / After diagram** — the centrepiece. Two columns, side by side. See patterns below.
- **Problem** — one sentence. What hurts.
- **Solution** — one sentence. What changes.
- **Wins** — bullets, ≤6 words each. e.g. "Tests hit one interface", "Pricing logic stops leaking", "Delete 4 shallow wrappers".
- **ADR callout** (if applicable) — one line in an amber-tinted box.
No paragraphs of explanation. If the diagram needs a paragraph to be understood, redraw the diagram.
## Diagram patterns
Pick the pattern that fits the candidate. Mix them. Don't make every diagram look the same — variety is part of the point.
### Mermaid graph (the workhorse for dependencies / call flow)
Use a Mermaid `flowchart` or `graph` when the point is "X calls Y calls Z, and look at the mess." Wrap it in a Tailwind-styled card so it doesn't feel parachuted in. Style with classDef to colour leakage edges red and the deep module dark. Sequence diagrams work well for "before: 6 round-trips; after: 1."
```html
<div class="rounded-lg border border-slate-200 bg-white p-4">
<pre class="mermaid">
flowchart LR
A[OrderHandler] --> B[OrderValidator]
B --> C[OrderRepo]
C -.leak.-> D[PricingClient]
classDef leak stroke:#dc2626,stroke-width:2px;
class C,D leak
</pre>
</div>
```
### Hand-built boxes-and-arrows (when Mermaid's layout fights you)
Modules as `<div>`s with borders and labels. Arrows as inline SVG `<line>` or `<path>` elements positioned absolutely over a relative container. Reach for this when you want the "after" diagram to feel like one thick-bordered deep module with greyed-out internals — Mermaid won't render that with the right weight.
### Cross-section (good for layered shallowness)
Stack horizontal bands (`h-12 border-l-4`) to show layers a call passes through. Before: 6 thin layers each doing nothing. After: 1 thick band labelled with the consolidated responsibility.
### Mass diagram (good for "interface as wide as implementation")
Two rectangles per module — one for interface surface area, one for implementation. Before: interface rectangle is nearly as tall as the implementation rectangle (shallow). After: interface rectangle is short, implementation rectangle is tall (deep).
### Call-graph collapse
Before: a tree of function calls rendered as nested boxes. After: the same tree collapsed into one box, with the now-internal calls shown faded inside it.
## Style guidance
- Lean editorial, not corporate-dashboard. Generous whitespace. Serif optional for headings (`font-serif` works well with stone/slate).
- Colour sparingly: one accent (emerald or indigo) plus red for leakage and amber for warnings.
- Keep diagrams ~320px tall so before/after sits comfortably side by side without scrolling.
- Use `text-xs uppercase tracking-wider` for module labels inside diagrams — they should read as schematic, not as UI.
- The only scripts are the Tailwind CDN and the Mermaid ESM import. The report is otherwise static — no app code, no interactivity beyond Mermaid's own rendering.
## Top recommendation section
One larger card. Candidate name, one sentence on why, anchor link to its card. That's it.
## Tone
Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from the `/codebase-design` skill. Concision is not an excuse to drift.
**Use exactly:** module, interface, implementation, depth, deep, shallow, seam, adapter, leverage, locality.
**Never substitute:** component, service, unit (for module) · API, signature (for interface) · boundary (for seam) · layer, wrapper (for module, when you mean module).
**Phrasings that fit the style:**
- "Order intake module is shallow — interface nearly matches the implementation."
- "Pricing leaks across the seam."
- "Deepen: one interface, one place to test."
- "Two adapters justify the seam: HTTP in prod, in-memory in tests."
**Wins bullets** name the gain in glossary terms: *"locality: bugs concentrate in one module"*, *"leverage: one interface, N call sites"*, *"interface shrinks; implementation absorbs the wrappers"*. Don't write *"easier to maintain"* or *"cleaner code"* — those terms aren't in the glossary and don't earn their place.
No hedging, no throat-clearing, no "it's worth noting that…". If a sentence could be a bullet, make it a bullet. If a bullet could be cut, cut it. If a term isn't in the `/codebase-design` glossary, reach for one that is before inventing a new one.
.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md
+71
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
---
name: improve-codebase-architecture
description: Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
disable-model-invocation: true
---
# Improve Codebase Architecture
Surface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."
- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
## Process
### 1. Explore
**Scope before you scan — YAGNI.** Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so put extra weight on the parts of the codebase that have recently changed. Decide *where* to look before you look:
- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.
- Otherwise, walk back a good stretch of the commit history (`git log --oneline`) to find the codebase's hot spots — the files and areas that keep coming up — and let those paths pull your attention first. If the changes are scattered with no clear hot spot, widen the net.
Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)?
- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report
Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from `$TMPDIR`, falling back to `/tmp` (or `%TEMP%` on Windows), and write to `<tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html` so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — `xdg-open <path>` on Linux, `open <path>` on macOS, `start <path>` on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.
The report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.
For each candidate, render a card with:
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge
End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the `/codebase-design` vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
### 3. Grilling loop
Once the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the decision tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — run the `/domain-modeling` skill to keep the domain model current as you go:
- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md`. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
- **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.
- **User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason?** Offer an ADR, framed as: _"Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?"_ Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones.
- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Run the `/codebase-design` skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.
.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/agents/openai.yaml
+5
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
interface:
display_name: "Improve Codebase Architecture"
short_description: "Find and grill architecture improvements"
policy:
allow_implicit_invocation: false
AGENTS.md
+12
View File
@@ -15,6 +15,18 @@ For substantial changes, use subagents as a standard practice when the work can
Use the `stop-slop` skill whenever an agent creates or changes project documentation. Apply its review to the complete affected document, including sections that the change did not introduce. Preserve technical meaning, commands, paths, formulas, links, policy strength, and product terminology. Remove filler, vague claims, formulaic contrasts, manufactured emphasis, false agency, and repetition. Prefer active voice and specific subjects. Do not weaken terms such as `must`, `never`, or `always` when they express a real requirement.
## Dependency source research
Use `npx opensrc` before inspecting an npm dependency's implementation. It resolves the package version from this workspace's lockfile, shallow-clones the matching source revision, and caches it outside the repository at `~/.opensrc/`.
- Do not guess at dependency behavior or implementation details. Identify the needed function, type, option, or control flow in the cached source and use that evidence when designing a change.
- Search the smallest relevant source area first. Use the package entry point, exports, types, and targeted code search to locate the behavior instead of reading unrelated files.
- Fetch source before a dependency investigation: `npx opensrc fetch --cwd . <package>`.
- Print the cached source path for use with repository search and file tools: `npx opensrc path --cwd . <package>`.
- Fetch several declared packages in one command: `npx opensrc fetch --cwd . <package-a> <package-b>`.
- After adding or upgrading a direct dependency, fetch its source at the locked version. Do not commit `~/.opensrc/` or copy dependency source into this repository.
- Use `npx opensrc list` to inspect the cache. Use `npx opensrc remove <package>` or `npx opensrc clean` only when cache removal is intended.
## Available skills
The `.agents/skills/` directory contains repo-specific skill files. Key skills: