feat: unify apps and agents in projects

.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,32 +1,32 @@
 ---
 name: code-review
-description: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
+description: "Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X\"."
 ---
 
 Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:
 
-- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
-- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
+- **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
+- **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
 
 Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
 
-The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.
+The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.
 
 ## Process
 
 ### 1. Pin the fixed point
 
-Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
+Whatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
 
 Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.
 
-Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
+Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents.
 
 ### 2. Identify the spec source
 
 Look for the originating spec, in this order:
 
-1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
+1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.), fetched via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
 2. A path the user passed as an argument.
 3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
 4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
@@ -35,35 +35,35 @@ Look for the originating spec, in this order:
 
 Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
 
-On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
+On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
 
 - **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
-- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
+- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
 
 Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:
 
-- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
-- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
-- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
-- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
-- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
-- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
-- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
-- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
-- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
-- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
-- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
-- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
+- **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
+- **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
+- **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
+- **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
+- **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
+- **Repeated Switches**: the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
+- **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
+- **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
+- **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
+- **Message Chains**: long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
+- **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
+- **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
 
 ### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
 
-**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:
+**Standards sub-agent prompt** should include:
 
 - The full diff command and commit list.
-- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
-- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
+- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it).
+- The brief: "Report, per file/hunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
 
-**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:
+**Spec sub-agent prompt** should include:
 
 - The diff command and commit list.
 - The path or fetched contents of the spec.
@@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final repor
 
 ### 5. Aggregate
 
-Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).
+Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).
 
-End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.
+End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.
 
 ## Why two axes
 

.agents/skills/codebase-design/DEEPENING.md

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 # Deepening
 
-How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
+How to deepen a cluster of shallow modules safely, given its dependencies. Assumes the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**.
 
 ## Dependency categories
 
 When assessing a candidate for deepening, classify its dependencies. The category determines how the deepened module is tested across its seam.
 
 ### 1. In-process
 
-Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable — merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
+Pure computation, in-memory state, no I/O. Always deepenable: merge the modules and test through the new interface directly. No adapter needed.
 
 ### 2. Local-substitutable
 
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Third-party services (Stripe, Twilio, etc.) you don't control. The deepened modu
 
 ## Testing strategy: replace, don't layer
 
-- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist — delete them.
+- Old unit tests on shallow modules become waste once tests at the deepened module's interface exist; delete them.
 - Write new tests at the deepened module's interface. The **interface is the test surface**.
 - Tests assert on observable outcomes through the interface, not internal state.
-- Tests should survive internal refactors — they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.
+- Tests should survive internal refactors, since they describe behaviour, not implementation. If a test has to change when the implementation changes, it's testing past the interface.

.agents/skills/codebase-design/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Design It Twice
 
-When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
+When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout): your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
 
-Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
+Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
 
 ## Process
 
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space
 
 - The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
 - The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
-- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
+- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints, not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
 
 Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
 
@@ -22,23 +22,23 @@ Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel. Each must produce a **radically different** int
 
 Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
 
-- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
-- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
-- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
+- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface: aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
+- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility: support many use cases and extension."
+- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller: make the default case trivial."
 - Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
 
-Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
+Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and GLOSSARY.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
 
 Each sub-agent outputs:
 
-1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
+1. Interface (types, methods, params, plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
 2. Usage example showing how callers use it
 3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
 4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
-5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
+5. Trade-offs: where leverage is high, where it's thin
 
 ### 3. Present and compare
 
 Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
 
-After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.
+After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated: the user wants a strong read, not a menu.