split agent-docs skills

This commit is contained in:
2026-04-23 01:29:16 +08:00
parent 0987c0bf0e
commit 2c22fcc4c3
23 changed files with 679 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
# Audit Checklist
Use this checklist for read-only audits of `AGENTS.md` and `agent-docs/`.
- Is the root `AGENTS.md` still the clear entrypoint?
- Can a maintainer tell which document to read first for each common task?
- Does any document act like a secondary router without enough reason?
- Does each rule appear to have one authoritative home?
- Does any inventory document contain policy language that should live in a rule doc?
- Does any general-purpose agent-doc mix in project-specific business rules, product instructions, or end-user documentation?
- Do key workflow docs state their edge cases and failure modes clearly enough that an agent would not have to infer them?
- Are there residual cycles or cross-links that materially increase adherence cost?
- Which findings are observed facts, and which are inferences about adherence risk?
- If there are no concrete findings, what residual risks remain?

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
# Child `agent-docs/` Template Chooser
Use this reference when you know you are editing a Markdown file inside `agent-docs/`, but still need to decide which child template fits.
## Choose The Smallest Matching Template
- Use `rule-doc-template.md` for instructions, constraints, policy, decision criteria, or workflow guidance.
- Use `inventory-doc-template.md` for maintained lists, registries, migration queues, or cleanup backlogs.
- Split the document if one file tries to serve both purposes and the split would reduce ambiguity.
## Quick Tests
- If the document mainly tells maintainers what to do and what to avoid, use the rule template.
- If the document mainly tracks entries that need to be updated over time, use the inventory template.
- If the document has a long list of repeated entries under one governing policy, keep the policy brief and let the inventory structure carry the list.
## Compatibility Note
Older repositories may still refer to `references/child-doc-template.md` as the default child template. Keep this file as the entrypoint, but point new work to the specific template that matches the document's job.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
# Consistency Checklist
Use this checklist for structural inspection of the AGENTS and `agent-docs` graph.
- Is every active child document directly or indirectly reachable from the root?
- What is the shortest routing depth for each child doc?
- Are there direct cycles? If so, which ones are harmless and which ones are noisy?
- Does any document have unusually high out-degree and behave like a secondary index?
- Does any intermediate document only restate links without adding scope or decision logic?
- Is any rule likely owned by more than one active document?
- Does each document's actual shape still match its declared job: root, rule doc, or inventory?
- Are there stale references to deleted or renamed docs?

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
# Inventory `agent-docs/` Template
Use this structure for Markdown files inside `agent-docs/` when the document's main job is to track a maintained set of entries: media plans, registries, migration queues, or cleanup lists.
## Recommended Shape
```md
# <Document Title>
<Opening statement: what this inventory tracks, when it should be used or updated, and that it must be followed in scope.>
## Applies To
- <tasks that require reading or updating this inventory>
## Does Not Apply To
- <tasks that belong in a rule doc, public docs, or another inventory>
## Maintenance Rules
- <how to add, update, remove, or rewrite entries>
## Reclassification Rules
- <when an entry changes status or grouping>
- <when repeated notes should become policy in a rule doc>
- <when this inventory should split or link to a narrower rule doc>
## Entries
### <Grouping Heading>
#### <Entry Title>
<Recommended fields; keep only the ones that materially help maintainers.>
Source:
- <path or owning document>
Status:
- <planned / in progress / complete / remove / optional>
Notes:
- <what to capture, why it matters, or what to clean up>
## Maintenance Checklist
- <questions for keeping the inventory current and unambiguous>
```
## Notes
- Prefer an inventory template when the document is mostly a maintained list rather than a rules essay.
- Start with a small field set. `Source`, `Status`, and `Notes` are common defaults, not mandatory fields.
- Add, rename, or remove entry fields to match the repository's actual maintenance needs.
- Keep entry fields stable enough within one document that maintainers can scan and update them consistently.
- Use grouping headings only when they materially improve navigation.
- Separate durable maintenance rules from the entries themselves.
- If the governing policy becomes large, move it to a rule doc and link to it from the inventory.
- Add `Reclassification Rules` when entry state changes or repeated review decisions would otherwise stay implicit.
- Write for maintainers and make update decisions explicit.
- If the document references repository files, write repository-relative paths in backticks, not Markdown links or machine-local absolute filesystem paths.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
# Linking Patterns
## Preferred Patterns
### Root -> Topic Docs
Use when the repository has a small set of clearly separate instruction topics.
```md
# Required `agent-docs` Before Editing
- Read and follow `agent-docs/topic-a.md` when ...
- Read and follow `agent-docs/topic-b.md` when ...
```
### Root -> Project Doc -> Leaf Docs
Use only when the intermediate layer reduces ambiguity or repeated cross-reference text.
```md
AGENTS.md
-> agent-docs/project-guidelines.md
-> agent-docs/topic-a.md
-> agent-docs/topic-b.md
```
### Root -> Subproject `agent-docs/`
Use in monorepos when a subproject has its own scoped instruction set.
```md
AGENTS.md
-> apps/docs/agent-docs/project-guidelines.md
-> services/api/agent-docs/backend-guidelines.md
```
Common rules stay in the root `AGENTS.md`. Subproject-specific rules stay near the subproject they govern.
## Anti-Patterns
- Root file linking to every leaf doc in a large tree without grouping
- Child docs that are never reachable from the root
- Topic-specific rules stored in the root file without a reference reason
- Extra index files that only restate links without adding scope or decision logic
- Moving rules out of the root file without leaving an explicit reference to the new child file
- Keeping monorepo-wide and subproject-specific constraints mixed together in the same root section when they can be separated cleanly
## Explicit Reference Rule
Parent documents should point to the child documents that refine them.
If a child document exists and is active, there must be an explicit reference path from the root `AGENTS.md` to that document.
The root `AGENTS.md` should list only the next `agent-docs` documents that are actually needed. Do not add unnecessary next-step links just for completeness.
## Conflict Resolution Rule
- More specific scope beats broader scope.
- A child doc with explicit task scope beats a generic note in the root file.
- A rule doc's behavior rule beats an inventory entry's shorthand wording.
- If two active docs both read like authoritative owners for the same rule, do not improvise a priority. Treat it as duplicate authority and refactor the tree.
- If two sibling docs are equally specific and both explicitly apply, do not break the tie by tone or wording. Report the ambiguity and refactor the tree.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
# Refactor Checklist
Use this checklist after changing the root `AGENTS.md` or any file in `agent-docs/`.
- Does each covered document own one clear topic?
- Does each filename clearly express the document's purpose?
- Does each opening explain purpose, trigger, and that the document must be followed in scope?
- Is the root `AGENTS.md` still the starting point for required `agent-docs`?
- Does every active `agent-docs/` file have an explicit path from the root?
- Does each child doc use the right shape for its job: rule doc versus inventory doc?
- Did you remove stale references, filenames, and replaced paths?
- Did you delete or update any `agent-docs` file that is no longer referenced from the root `AGENTS.md`?
- Did you avoid duplicating the same rule across multiple active docs?
- Did you avoid mixing long entry inventories into rule docs when a separate inventory would be clearer?
- Did you avoid adding an intermediate router or index doc that only repeats links?
- If you split a doc, did the split reduce ambiguity, repetition, or maintenance cost?
- If a document grew broader, did you check whether it now owns more than one real decision surface and should be split?
- If a workflow is fragile or easy to misapply, did you add explicit edge cases or failure modes instead of hiding them in prose?
- Is the default path basis still the root of the current Git working tree unless explicitly overridden?
- Are repository-wide constraints still in the root file?
- Are topic-specific constraints still in child docs?
- Are project-specific rules still kept in project-specific documents rather than the general rules layer?
- Did you avoid mixing general agent-doc governance with project-specific business rules or end-user documentation?
- Do repository file references still use plain repository-relative paths in backticks rather than Markdown links or machine-local absolute paths?
- Did you keep reference depth minimal?
- Does the root still act like a route map instead of a topic dump?
- If the repository has a validation command, did you run it?

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
# Repo Alignment Checklist
Use this checklist when comparing AGENTS or `agent-docs` against repository facts.
- Which exact doc claims depend on repository reality?
- Which repository files or commands provide the authoritative fact for each claim?
- Do the rule docs expose enough authority or source-of-truth anchors that a maintainer can verify the claim without guessing?
- Do scripts, ports, paths, or package names still match the docs?
- Do the documented verification commands still match actual script behavior?
- Do layering, contract-boundary, or runtime-topology claims still match code structure?
- Which mismatches are must-fix drift versus wording cleanup?
- Are the conclusions grounded in current files and command output rather than memory?

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
# Root `AGENTS.md` Template
Use this structure for the `AGENTS.md` at the root of the current Git working tree.
## Recommended Shape
```md
# Root AGENTS.md
- State that this file is the starting point for the repository's required `agent-docs`.
- Define the default path basis.
# Common Constraints
- Keep repository-wide rules here.
- Do not repeat topic-specific rules that belong in child docs.
# Required `agent-docs` Before Editing
- List the required `agent-docs` explicitly.
- Use explicit "Read and follow ..." wording.
```
## Notes
- Keep this file short.
- Treat this file as an instruction document, not a passive index.
- Reference child docs only when they are actually needed.
- Write for maintainers and keep decisions explicit.
- When referring to child docs, write repository-relative paths in backticks such as `agent-docs/example.md`, not Markdown links or machine-local absolute filesystem paths.
- Do not turn the root file into a dump of all topic-specific rules.
- If the root starts collecting multiple topic-specific rule blocks, split them into child docs and keep only the routing decision here.
## Complexity Budget
- Keep the root focused on three jobs only: entrypoint, repository-wide constraints, and next-step routing.
- If a root section starts carrying topic-specific decision logic, move that logic to a child doc and leave only the routing cue behind.
- Treat multiple topic-specific rule blocks in the root as a refactor trigger, not as a sign to keep extending the root file.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
# Rule `agent-docs/` Template
Use this structure for Markdown files inside `agent-docs/` when the document's main job is to govern behavior: rules, policy, constraints, decision criteria, or workflow guidance.
## Recommended Shape
```md
# <Document Title>
<Opening statement: what this doc governs, when it applies, and that it must be followed in scope.>
## Applies To
- <specific task or document types>
## Does Not Apply To
- <out-of-scope task or document types>
## Authority
- <source of truth: owning doc, repository path, command, or code area>
## <Rule Section>
- <instructions>
## Edge Cases
- <exceptions, ambiguous cases, or branch conditions>
## Failure Modes
- <what usually goes wrong and how to recover>
## Checklist
- <validation questions>
```
## Notes
- Make the scope explicit.
- Keep the document responsible for one topic.
- Use semantic filenames and headings.
- Write for maintainers. State actions, constraints, and decision criteria directly.
- If the document references repository files, write repository-relative paths in backticks, not Markdown links or machine-local absolute filesystem paths.
- State the user or maintainer decision directly: what to do, what to avoid, and how to choose.
- Add `Authority` when the rule depends on a repository fact, owning document, or other source of truth that later reviews must verify.
- Add `Edge Cases` and `Failure Modes` when the workflow is easy to misapply or the scope boundary is easy to misunderstand.
- Prefer linking to inventories, examples, or narrower child docs instead of embedding long registries inline.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
# Skill Maintenance Checklist
Use this checklist when editing the `agent-docs` skill suite itself: any `SKILL.md`, `agents/openai.yaml`, or shared file under `references/`.
- Does each `agents/openai.yaml` still match the skill title, scope, and trigger language in the corresponding `SKILL.md`?
- Is every file in `references/` directly referenced from the router skill or the specialized skill that requires it?
- Are there stale filenames, old skill names, or outdated terms left behind after renames or splits?
- Does one concept still use one term across `SKILL.md`, `agents/openai.yaml`, and `references/`?
- If a shared checklist or template changed, do the affected skills still point to the right file and workflow step?

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
# Verification Checklist
Use this checklist after changing `AGENTS.md` or `agent-docs/`.
- Did you run the strongest repository validation that actually applies?
- For docs-only work with no stronger validator, did you at least run `git diff --check`?
- If routing changed, did you re-check root reachability?
- If cross-links changed, did you re-check for stale references or direct cycles where relevant?
- If root routing, child references, conflict rules, or required follow-up workflow changed, did you test 1 to 3 representative prompts?
- Did those representative prompts confirm that the agent read the root entrypoint first, chose the intended specialized workflow, ran required follow-up checks, and surfaced ambiguity instead of guessing?
- Does the completion claim match the commands actually run?
- If part of the change was not verified, is that limitation stated explicitly?