| name | pluxx-refine-plugin |
| description | Use this skill when a valid Pluxx scaffold is generic, tool-shaped, fragmented, or unclear. Apply product context, improve workflow taxonomy, rewrite shared instructions, or run a findings-first scaffold review. |
Refine A Pluxx Plugin
Improve semantic quality only after the deterministic scaffold is healthy.
Workflow
- Run
pluxx doctor and pluxx lint. Fix structural errors before semantic work.
- Identify the smallest useful refinement:
- missing product context
- tool-per-skill or fragmented taxonomy
- generic or inaccurate shared instructions
- weak examples, setup boundaries, or host framing
- findings-first pre-ship review
- Read references/refinement-playbook.md when pass selection, taxonomy grouping, source ownership, or stop conditions are unclear.
- Use
taxonomy-shaper, instruction-editor, or host-translator for the matching bounded pass when the host supports specialists.
- Prepare context when needed with
pluxx agent prepare --website <url> --docs <url>.
- Inspect prompt packs with
pluxx agent prompt <taxonomy|instructions|review> when the user wants control before execution.
- Run only the required passes:
pluxx agent run taxonomy --runner <runner>pluxx agent run instructions --runner <runner>pluxx agent run review --runner <runner> --no-verify
- Edit source skills and
INSTRUCTIONS.md; never fix generated dist/ directly.
- Re-run
pluxx validate, pluxx lint, skills-ref validate for changed source skills, pluxx eval, and pluxx test after the refinement.
Quality Rules
- Group around user outcomes, not raw MCP tool names.
- Keep skill descriptions intent-first and specific enough to avoid adjacent workflow collisions.
- Preserve managed/custom ownership boundaries during rewrites.
- Prefer one coherent workflow over several micro-skills that must always load together.
- Keep
SKILL.md lean; move conditional detail into directly linked references/ files.
- Leave deterministic commands and fragile checks in scripts rather than re-generating them as prose.
Output
Explain the product weakness addressed, source changes made, validation result, intentionally unchanged surfaces, and the next verification step.
