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)
3.0 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| story-lens | This skill should be used when evaluating whether a piece of prose constitutes a high-quality story. It applies George Saunders's craft framework — causality, escalation, efficiency, expectation, and character accumulation — as a structured diagnostic lens. Triggers on requests like "is this a good story?", "review this prose", "does this feel like a story or just an anecdote?", "critique this narrative", or any request to assess the craft quality of fiction or narrative nonfiction. |
Story Lens
A diagnostic skill for evaluating prose quality using George Saunders's storytelling framework. The framework operates on a single core insight: the difference between a story and an anecdote is causality plus irreversible change.
Load saunders-framework.md for the full framework, including all diagnostic questions and definitions.
How to Apply the Skill
1. Read the Prose
Read the full piece before forming any judgments. Resist diagnosing on first pass.
2. Apply the Six Diagnostic Questions in Order
Each question builds on the previous.
Beat Causality Map the beats. Does each beat cause the next? Or are they sequential — "and then... and then..."? Sequential beats = anecdote. Causal beats = story.
Escalation Is the story moving up a staircase or running on a treadmill? Each step must be irrevocable. Once a character's condition has fundamentally changed, the story cannot re-enact that change or linger in elaboration. Look for sections that feel like they're holding still.
The Story-Yet Test Stop at the end of each major section and ask: if it ended here, would it be complete? Something must have changed irreversibly. If nothing has changed, everything so far is setup — not story.
Character Accumulation Track what the reader learns about the character, beat by beat. Is that knowledge growing? Does each beat confirm, complicate, or overturn prior understanding? Flat accumulation = underdeveloped character. Specificity accrues into care.
The Three E's Check against the triad: Escalation (moving forward), Efficiency (nothing extraneous), Expectation (next beat is surprising but not absurd). Failure in any one of these is diagnosable.
Moral/Technical Unity If something feels off emotionally or ethically — a character's choice that doesn't ring true, a resolution that feels unearned — look for the technical failure underneath. Saunders's claim: it is always there. Find the craft problem, and the moral problem dissolves.
3. Render a Verdict
After applying all six diagnostics, deliver a clear assessment:
- Is this a story, or still an anecdote?
- Which diagnostic reveals the primary weakness?
- What is the single most important structural fix?
Be direct. The framework produces precise, actionable diagnoses — not impressionistic feedback. Imprecise praise or vague encouragement is not useful here. The goal is to help the writer see exactly where the story is working and where it isn't.