mathias
1d140ec525
Implements #5's decision. The hard part was #37's, not #5's: which skills need an escalation rule? A hardcoded list rots, sniffing the prose for "does this write anything" is unfalsifiable, and a frontmatter flag is the option #5 rejected wearing a hat. So there is no acting set. Every skill answers the question, and a read-only one answers it in a line. That turns an absence into a claim someone can disagree with, which is the whole point — "this skill never hands back" is a design decision worth stating, and today it was indistinguishable from nobody having thought about it. Eleven written here, all advisory or read-only, where the honest answer is short and the value is in being specific rather than generic. `cognitive-load` stops when the metric disagrees with the people reading the code, because that is evidence about the metric. `test-design` stops when the tests are fine and the design under test is what makes them awkward. `code-review` stops when the diff is big enough that a review would be a skim, and says so rather than producing confident coverage of a fraction. The remaining thirty are the acting set — writes, dispatches, credentials, releases — and each needs a rule someone thought about rather than a rote paragraph, so they sit in bin/escalation-pending.txt. That list only shrinks, and it is self-cleaning: a listed skill that HAS a section fails the gate, so an exemption cannot outlive its reason. Mutation-verified both ways. Six test cases including the stale-entry case, because an exemption for a skill that no longer exists is how a gate quietly stops covering something. Refs #37, closes the mechanism half Bump-Type: minor
43 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
43 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
# Skills whose escalation rule has not been written yet (#37).
|
|
#
|
|
# This list only shrinks. A skill here is exempt from the '## Escalation'
|
|
# requirement until someone writes its real stop conditions; a skill that HAS a
|
|
# section and is still listed fails the gate, so the list cannot outlive its
|
|
# reason.
|
|
#
|
|
# The ones already done were the advisory and read-only skills, where the honest
|
|
# answer is a line. What is left is the acting set — skills that write files,
|
|
# dispatch agents, touch credentials or move releases — and each of those needs
|
|
# a rule someone thought about, not a rote paragraph. Per #19, one at a time.
|
|
|
|
atdd
|
|
dream
|
|
experiment-spec
|
|
feature-spec
|
|
gitea-ci
|
|
own-the-task
|
|
planning
|
|
playwright
|
|
problem-analysis
|
|
refactoring
|
|
regulatory-risk-assessment
|
|
secret-hygiene
|
|
session-retrospective
|
|
spec-driven-dev
|
|
superpowers-brainstorming
|
|
superpowers-dispatching-parallel-agents
|
|
superpowers-executing-plans
|
|
superpowers-finishing-a-development-branch
|
|
superpowers-receiving-code-review
|
|
superpowers-requesting-code-review
|
|
superpowers-subagent-driven-development
|
|
superpowers-using-git-worktrees
|
|
superpowers-using-superpowers
|
|
superpowers-verification-before-completion
|
|
superpowers-writing-plans
|
|
superpowers-writing-skills
|
|
tdd
|
|
trainer
|
|
user-stories
|
|
web-shot
|