olliecrow/familiarize

Familiarize

Multi-agent collaboration

• Default to using subagents when they are likely to improve speed, quality, confidence, or keep the main context clean.
• Use subagents to widen coverage, dig deeper on one thread, get a fresh second opinion, or keep the main thread clean while side work runs.
• Split work into clear packets with owners, inputs, acceptance checks, and a synthesis step when parallelizing.
• Keep the main agent focused on synthesis, unblockers, and the next critical-path step; let subagents handle bounded side work that can run in parallel.
• Use single-agent execution only when scope is small or coordination overhead outweighs gains.

Proactive autonomy and knowledge compounding

• Be proactive: immediately take the next highest-value in-scope action when it is clear.
• Default to autonomous execution: do not pause for confirmation between normal in-scope steps.
• Request user input only when absolutely necessary: ambiguous requirements, material risk tradeoffs, missing required data/access, or destructive/irreversible actions outside policy.
• If blocked by command/tool/env failures, attempt high-confidence fallbacks autonomously before escalating (for example rg -> find/grep, python -> python3, alternate repo-native scripts).
• When the workflow uses plan/, ensure required plan directories exist before reading/writing them (create when edits are allowed; otherwise use an in-memory fallback and call it out).
• Treat transient external failures (network/SSH/remote APIs/timeouts) as retryable by default: run bounded retries with backoff and capture failure evidence before concluding blocked.
• On repeated invocations for the same objective, resume from prior findings/artifacts and prioritize net-new progress over rerunning identical work unless verification requires reruns.
• Drive work to complete outcomes with verification, not partial handoffs.
• Treat iterative execution as the default for non-trivial work; run adaptive loop passes. Example loops (adapt as needed, not rigid): issue-resolution investigate -> plan -> fix -> verify -> battletest -> organise-docs -> git-commit -> re-review; cleanup scan -> prioritize -> clean -> verify -> re-scan; docs audit -> update -> verify -> re-audit.
• Keep looping until actual completion criteria are met: no actionable in-scope items remain, verification is green, and confidence is high.
• Run organise-docs frequently during execution to capture durable decisions and learnings, not only at the end.
• Create small checkpoint commits frequently with git-commit when changes are commit-eligible, checks are green, and repo policy permits commits.
• Never squash commits; always use merge commits when integrating branches.
• Prefer simplification over added complexity: aggressively remove bloat, redundancy, and over-engineering while preserving correctness.
• When you touch code, leave the touched area in a better state than you found it: clearer, simpler, tidier, and at least as performant unless the task requires an explicit trade-off.
• Before finishing any non-trivial task or pass, run at least one explicit consolidation pass across the touched code, docs, notes, tests, and configs.
• Use that pass to merge toward one clear source of truth, remove stale or duplicate material, and resolve contradictions before you declare the work complete.
• Do this by default as part of normal completion, even when the user did not explicitly ask for cleanup, consolidation, or contradiction resolution.
• Use simple, plain English in user messages, docs, notes, reports, code comments, and other explanatory writing. Avoid jargon, fancy wording, and complex phrasing. When a technical term is needed for correctness, explain it in simple words the first time. Default to short user-facing responses. Think about what the user most wants to know, and lead with that. Do not dump every detail by default. Always include important changes, blockers, verification gaps, and any important assumptions, nuances, principles, or decisions that shaped the work. Add more detail only when the user asks for it or when uncertainty or risk makes it necessary.
• Compound knowledge continuously: keep docs/ accurate and up to date, and promote durable learnings and decisions from work into docs.

Long-task checkpoint cadence

• For any non-trivial task (including long efforts), run recurring checkpoint cycles instead of waiting for a single end-of-task wrap-up.
• At each meaningful milestone with commit-eligible changes, and at least once per major phase, invoke git-commit to create a small logical checkpoint commit once relevant checks are green and repo policy permits commits.
• At the same cadence, invoke organise-docs whenever durable learnings/decisions appear, and prune stale plan/ scratch artifacts.
• If either checkpoint is blocked (for example failing checks or low-confidence documentation), resolve or record the blocker immediately and retry before expanding scope.

Terminal state contract (must follow)

The skill is complete only when all of the following are true:

• Objective completion: the user-requested outcome is achieved, or explicitly marked blocked with concrete blocker evidence.
• Workflow completion: every required workflow step is resolved as done, blocked, or not-applicable, with brief evidence or rationale.
• Step-level terminal completion: each numbered subtask must have explicit completion evidence (artifact, command output, or written rationale) before advancing.
• Verification completion: required checks/validations for this skill are executed, or any unavailable checks are explicitly called out with impact.
• Findings completion (where applicable): report only evidence-backed findings; if no high-confidence critical findings are present, explicitly state that.
• Loop completion: no actionable in-scope next step remains under the current objective.

Stop only after this terminal contract is satisfied; otherwise continue iterating.

Terminal state examples (adapt to skill)

• done: requested outcome is delivered and required checks are completed (for example expected artifact/report produced and required validation command(s) passed).
• blocked: progress cannot continue after bounded retries because of a concrete dependency or access issue; blocker evidence and exact unblock action are reported.
• not-applicable: an optional step is explicitly skipped with reason (for example no remote configured, so push step is marked not-applicable).

Overview

Build a clear, accurate mental model of the codebase: layout, purpose, key flows, and current change state. When reviewing changes, conduct a deep, thorough review so every relevant change and decision is understood.

This skill also covers fresh-context, read-only inspection passes where the goal is to quickly understand repo shape, current decisions, likely gaps, and the next safe step without editing files.

Behavioral guardrails (must follow)

• Proceed without permission for standard in-scope steps (read/scan/summarize/plan/tests/edits/analysis). Ask clarifying questions only when requirements are ambiguous, missing inputs, or a risky decision cannot be inferred. Require explicit approval only for destructive/irreversible actions, executing untrusted code or installers, remote-state changes (push/deploy/publish), or changes outside the repo environment.
• State assumptions explicitly; if something is unclear or has multiple interpretations, ask.
• Prefer the simplest explanation supported by evidence; avoid speculative conclusions.
• Keep scope surgical and read-only unless explicitly asked to edit.
• If an environment variable is required, check whether it is already set before asking for it or stating it is missing.
• If there is nothing left to do, say so explicitly and stop.

Git safety and permissions

• Follow the current repo's git policy and the session's environment restrictions; if git writes or pushes are disallowed, do not perform them and provide commands instead.
• Never rewrite git history or force push. Do not use git rebase, git commit --amend, git reset --hard, git reset --soft, git reset --mixed, git push --force, git push --force-with-lease, or git filter-branch, or git clean -fdx.

Decision framing

When a decision is required, always provide:

• Background context sufficient to make the decision.
• Pros and cons for each viable option.
• Your recommendation and the reasoning behind it. If no decision is required, say so explicitly and continue.

Trigger phrases

Use this skill when the user asks for:

• fresh-context
• fresh context
• repo inspection only
• planning support only
• inspect this repo only
• do not edit files; inspect

Rationale capture

When you fix an issue, make a change that resolves an issue, or reach an important decision, capture the "why" in a durable place (code comments, docs, ADR, or tests). Do not rely only on plan/ scratch notes. In your summary, mention where the rationale was recorded.

Plan/docs/decisions robustness

• Treat plan/ as short-term scratch and never commit it.
• If plan/ is missing, create it (and any needed subdirs) only when edits are permitted; otherwise keep a lightweight in-memory log and state in the report that plan logging was not persisted.
• Treat docs/ as long-lived, evergreen guidance; prefer updating existing docs when they have a clear home, but create new focused docs/subdirectories when it improves navigability (and link them from related docs or indexes).
• If docs/decisions.md is missing, prefer using the setup skill to create it when allowed. If you cannot create docs, capture rationale in the smallest durable local place (code comments or tests) and call out the missing decision doc in the report.

Workflow

1. Establish scope and constraints:

   • Identify repo root and primary language/tooling.
   • Clarify any time constraints or areas of focus if the user is vague.
   • Prefer read-only exploration; do not modify files unless explicitly asked.
   • If the ask is a fresh-context inspection or planning-support pass, keep the scope read-only and optimize for current-state clarity rather than exhaustive implementation advice.

2. Map the repository layout:

   • Scan top-level structure and key directories.
   • Read the primary docs (README, docs/, CONTRIBUTING, ARCHITECTURE) if present.
   • Identify entrypoints, build/test scripts, and configuration files.

3. Understand how the system works:

   • Locate main modules, services, or packages and their responsibilities.
   • Trace high-level data flows or request paths through the code.
   • Note external dependencies and integrations.
   • Identify any conventions (naming, folder roles, patterns).

4. Capture developer workflows and interfaces:

   • Build/run/test map: capture canonical commands and where they live (scripts, Makefile, CI).
   • Config and environment: list required env vars, config files, secrets expectations, and local dev setup.
   • Interfaces: enumerate public APIs/CLIs or entrypoints for users/services.
   • Note similar onboarding essentials when present (e.g., CI/CD, release flow, data stores).

5. Inspect current working tree state:

   • Check git status -sb.
   • Review git diff and git diff --staged for local changes.
   • If diffs are large, start with git diff --stat or git diff --name-only and then review per-file diffs to keep output manageable.
   • Account for large git output; prefer bounded output like git log --oneline -n 20, git diff --stat, git diff --name-only, or per-file diffs instead of unbounded commands.
   • If git operations can be executed here, run them directly using the user's git identity; otherwise, output explicit commands, continue with non-git repo familiarization, and mark git-dependent findings as pending.
   • When providing git commands, output a single copy-pasteable block with only commands and no commentary; place explanations above or below the block.

6. Compare against main when relevant:

   • If the current branch is not main, review diffs vs main (e.g., git diff main...HEAD and relevant logs).
   • If diffs are large, start with git diff --stat main...HEAD or git diff --name-only main...HEAD and then review per-file diffs to keep output manageable.
   • Account for large git output; prefer bounded output like git log --oneline -n 20, git diff --stat main...HEAD, git diff --name-only main...HEAD, or per-file diffs instead of unbounded commands.
   • Summarize how the current branch diverges (scope and intent) and which areas are affected.
   • Review every changed file and hunk when comparing against main; do not skip relevant areas.
   • If git operations can be executed here, run them directly using the user's git identity; otherwise, output explicit commands, continue architecture/workflow familiarization, and call out any branch-diff uncertainty explicitly.
   • When providing git commands, output a single copy-pasteable block with only commands and no commentary; place explanations above or below the block.

7. Optional deeper dives (as needed):

   • Read critical modules or hot paths to validate understanding.
   • Skim tests to understand expected behavior and coverage.
   • Identify any missing or outdated documentation.
   • Identify duplicate or contradictory docs, notes, configs, or workflows and name the most likely canonical source when the evidence is strong.

8. Summarize findings:

   • Default to a short orientation. Expand only when the user asked for a deeper walkthrough or when uncertainty makes it necessary.
   • Provide a concise, intuitive summary of the repo structure, purpose, and key workflows.
   • Include brief context for a new reader (what the system does, how parts fit together).
   • Summarize current git status, local diffs, and branch-vs-main diffs if applicable.
   • For fresh-context inspection or planning-support requests, explicitly include:
     • current repo shape,
     • what already looks decided or well defined,
     • the highest-confidence gaps or missing pieces,
     • and the next safe step.
   • Note open questions, uncertainties, or areas that need deeper review.
   • Avoid analogies; use simple, direct explanations and define any necessary technical terms.