メニュー
Design Gormes package/API boundaries. Use for provider, gateway, tool, session, memory, Goncho, plugin, API, or TUI seams, unclear write_scope, or design comparison.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Implement one selected repo-scoped Gormes row with tests. Use when next-work says decision=build. Do not use for decision=plan, broad parity audits, or untracked feature ideas.
Shape source-backed Gormes progress rows. Use for decision=plan builder handoffs, row splitting, feature maps, or parity planning. Do not use when decision=build or for runtime code.
Route Gormes work to the smallest repo-local skill chain. Use before substantial planning/building/refactor work, when unsure which Gormes skill applies, or when creating/improving repo-local skills.
Build one selected Gormes behavior with red-green-refactor. Use when the row or reproduced bug defines a test target. Do not use after decision=plan or for broad planning.
Move one bounded cmd/gormes command domain out of root files toward root main.go only. Use when thinning cmd/gormes, burning down loose root files, preserving CLI behavior, or catching refactor regressions during cmd moves.
Use when an agent is unfamiliar with a Gormes code area, a change crosses package boundaries, or a refactor needs a source-backed module map before edits.
| name | gormes-interface-designer |
| description | Design Gormes package/API boundaries. Use for provider, gateway, tool, session, memory, Goncho, plugin, API, or TUI seams, unclear write_scope, or design comparison. |
For Gormes work, stay on the existing development branch. Do not create or
use feature branches, short-lived branches, or git worktrees. If the checkout
is not on development, stop before editing and switch safely or report the
blocker.
Choose Gormes interfaces that make Hermes-in-Go easier to finish: small caller-facing surfaces, strong compatibility, hermetic tests, and implementation complexity hidden behind useful modules.
Identify:
If the answer is in code, inspect code instead of asking.
Produce at least two materially different interface shapes:
Do not implement yet.
Compare in prose:
If one design is clearly best, recommend it and name the progress row it enables. If the design needs implementation, create/refine a builder-ready row rather than editing runtime code.
Report the considered interfaces, recommended design, rejected alternatives, tests that would prove it, and the row/write_scope to implement it.
