fe3b1eee16
Synced 79 commits from EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin upstream while
preserving fork-specific customizations (Python/FastAPI pivot, Zoominfo-internal
review agents, deploy-wiring operational lessons, custom personas).
## Triage decisions (15 conflicts resolved)
Keep deleted (7) -- fork already removed these in prior cleanups:
- agents/design/{design-implementation-reviewer,design-iterator,figma-design-sync}
(no fork successor; backend-Python focus doesn't need UI/Figma agents)
- agents/docs/ankane-readme-writer (replaced by python-package-readme-writer)
- agents/review/{data-migration-expert,performance-oracle,security-sentinel}
(replaced by *-reviewer naming convention: data-migrations-reviewer,
performance-reviewer, security-reviewer)
Keep local (1):
- agents/workflow/lint.md (Python tooling: ruff/mypy/djlint/bandit; upstream
deleted the file). Fixed pre-existing duplicate "2." numbering bug.
Restore from upstream (1):
- agents/review/data-integrity-guardian.md (kept for GDPR/CCPA privacy
compliance angle not covered by data-migrations-reviewer)
Merge both (6) -- upstream structural wins layered with fork intent:
- agents/research/best-practices-researcher.md (upstream <examples> removal +
fork's Rails/Ruby -> Python/FastAPI translations)
- skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md (universal-brainstorming routing + Slack
context + non-obvious angles + fork's Deploy wiring flag)
- skills/ce-plan/SKILL.md (universal-planning routing + planning-bootstrap +
fork's two Deploy wiring check bullets)
- skills/ce-review/SKILL.md (Run ID, model tiering haiku->sonnet, compact-JSON
artifact contract, file-type awareness, cli-readiness-reviewer + fork's
zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, Stage 6 Zip Agent
Validation)
- skills/ce-review/references/persona-catalog.md (cli-readiness row + adversarial
refinement + fork's Language & Framework Conditional layer; 22 personas total)
- skills/ce-work/SKILL.md (Parallel Safety Check, parallel-subagent constraints,
Phase 3-4 compression + fork's deploy-values self-review row, with duplicate
checklist bullet collapsed to single occurrence)
## Auto-applied (no triage needed)
- 225 remote-only files: accepted as-is (new docs, brainstorms, plans,
upstream skills, tests, scripts)
- 70 local-only files: 46 preserved as-is (kieran-python, tiangolo-fastapi,
zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, essay/proof commands,
excalidraw-png-export, etc.); 24 stayed deleted (dhh-rails-style,
andrew-kane-gem-writer, dspy-ruby Ruby skills no longer needed)
## README updated
- Removed Design section (3 deleted agents)
- Removed deleted Review entries (data-migration-expert, dhh-rails-reviewer,
kieran-rails-reviewer, performance-oracle, security-sentinel)
- Added new Review entries: design-conformance-reviewer, previous-comments-reviewer,
tiangolo-fastapi-reviewer, zip-agent-validator
- Workflow: added lint
- Docs: replaced ankane-readme-writer with python-package-readme-writer
## Known issues (not introduced by merge decisions)
- 9 detect-project-type.sh tests fail on macOS bash 3.2 (script uses
`declare -A` which requires bash 4+). Upstream regression in commit 070092d
(#568). Resolution: install bash 4+ via `brew install bash` locally;
upstream fix tracked separately.
- 2 review-skill-contract tests reference deleted agents (dhh-rails-reviewer,
data-migration-expert). Pre-existing fork inconsistency, not new.
bun run release:validate: passes (46 agents, 51 skills, 0 MCP servers)
2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
Tone Guide for Ticket Writing
Core Principle
A human will read this ticket. Write like a teammate asking for help, not an AI generating a spec.
Pressure Test Checklist
Review every sentence against these questions:
1. Patronizing language
- Does any sentence explain the reader's own domain back to them?
- Would you say this to a senior engineer's face without feeling awkward?
- Are you telling them HOW to implement something in their own system?
- Are you preemptively arguing against approaches they haven't proposed?
Examples of patronizing language:
- "This is a common pattern in Kubernetes deployments" (they know)
- "Helm charts support templating via {{ .Values }}" (they wrote the chart)
- "Why X, not Y" sections that dismiss alternatives before anyone suggested them
2. AI-isms to remove
- Em dashes used more than once per paragraph
- Every thought is a bullet point instead of a sentence
- Rigid structure that feels generated (Ask -> Why -> Context -> AC)
- Spec-writing voice: "When absent or false, existing behavior is preserved"
- Overuse of "ensures", "leverages", "facilitates", "streamlines"
- Unnecessary hedging: "It should be noted that..."
- Filler transitions: "Additionally", "Furthermore", "Moreover"
- Lists where prose would be more natural
3. Human voice check
- Does it sound like something you'd type in Slack, cleaned up slightly?
- Are there moments of humility? ("you'd know better than us", "if we're missing something")
- Is the tone collaborative rather than directive?
- Would you feel comfortable putting your name on this?
4. Kindness check
- Frame requests as requests, not demands
- Acknowledge the reader's expertise
- Offer context without over-explaining
- "Happy to chat more" > "Please advise"
What to keep
- Technical detail and specifics (the reader needs these)
- Code snippets showing current state and desired state
- File references with line numbers
- Clear "done when" criteria (but keep them minimal)