Claude Code skills, rules, and language bundles https://git.cjennings.net/rulesets/atom?h=main 2026-04-19T22:23:37+00:00 2026-04-19T22:23:37+00:00 Craig Jennings c@cjennings.net 2026-04-19T22:23:37+00:00 urn:sha1:c96296a30e3f712561b5f05f3f1e9d95588f643e Cross-cutting rule covering subagent hygiene: - Decision table: parallel-safe (read-only investigation, independent test failures, multi-domain research) vs sequential-with-review (plan execution, coupled edits) vs never-parallel (concurrent writes) vs don't-subagent-at-all (target known, work fits in ~10 tool calls). - Prompt contract: scope / pasted context / explicit 'do NOT' list / required output format. Missing any field yields shallow work. - Context-pollution rule: subagents absorb noise the main thread shouldn't carry. When one fails, dispatch a fix-agent with the failure report — do not retry in the orchestrator. - Review-gate cadence: after each sequential task, or every ~3 in parallel batches. - Anti-patterns including parallel implementation on overlapping files, broad 'fix all the tests' prompts, timeout-tuning to mask flakes, and letting the agent decide scope. Added one-line cross-references to subagents.md from debug/, review-code/, and finish-branch/ SKILL.md — the skills that most rely on delegation. Clean-room synthesis from NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit's subagent-driven-development pattern (MIT). 2026-04-19T21:41:58+00:00 Craig Jennings c@cjennings.net 2026-04-19T21:41:58+00:00 urn:sha1:8127307278160a2a7a744169180d2eea7c3bf731 Clean-room synthesis of the 'finishing a development branch' pattern from obra/superpowers (MIT) — adopted as the forced-choice workflow scaffold, not the substantive rules. Substantive rules defer to existing ones: - Verification → verification.md - Commit conventions + no AI attribution → commits.md - Review discipline → review-code Core patterns implemented: - Phase 1 verify-before-options (hard-stop on failing tests) - Phase 2 base branch + commit range + worktree detection - Phase 3 forced-choice menu (exactly 4 options, no editorializing, stop+wait) - Phase 4 execution per-option with: - Option 1 (merge locally): re-verify after merge, delete branch, prompt about remote-branch cleanup separately - Option 2 (push + PR): gh pr create with inline template (no AI attribution in the body); do NOT remove worktree - Option 3 (keep): no git state changes; preserve worktree - Option 4 (discard): typed-word "discard" confirmation gate required; lists what will be permanently lost; force-delete + remote cleanup - Phase 5 worktree cleanup matrix (cleanup for 1 and 4; preserve for 2 and 3) Notable over the upstream superpowers skill: - Explicit delegation to verification.md / commits.md / review-code rather than re-teaching those standards inline - Cross-references to /review-code (pre) and /arch-evaluate (if architectural) - Handles remote-branch cleanup question separately from local branch (upstream conflates them) - "Common Mistakes" section names the specific failure modes this skill prevents (open-ended "what now", accidental deletes, merge-then-oops, worktree amnesia, trailing AI attribution in PRs) Rubric coverage vs upstream: M (verify → options → execute → cleanup); M (forced-choice menu pattern); M (typed-discard confirmation gate); M (worktree cleanup matrix); M (hard-stop on failing tests); + (explicit deferral to existing rules vs upstream's inline rules); + (remote-branch cleanup as separate prompt); + (skill integration notes for /review-code and /arch-evaluate); no dropped capabilities. Makefile SKILLS extended; make install symlinks globally at ~/.claude/skills/finish-branch.