| name | trails-primitive-parity |
| description | Use when comparing maturity across Trails primitives without assuming every primitive must match trail capabilities. Helps agents identify deliberate gaps, real user-facing gaps, and future-facing symmetry pressure. |
Trails Primitive Parity
Use this skill when a resource, signal, contour, detour, layer, permit, tracing primitive, or other Trails concept looks less mature than trails.
Workflow
- Name the primitive and the suspected gap.
- Gather current public docs, ADRs, examples, and package exports for that primitive.
- Check whether it participates in topo validation, Warden, examples, query surfaces, or generated artifacts.
- Decide whether the difference is:
- Deliberate scope for the primitive's current maturity.
- A user-facing gap.
- Agent ergonomics debt.
- Future-facing symmetry pressure with no current implementation need.
- Recommend docs, examples, Warden coverage, query support, or no change based on evidence.
Authoritative Sources
docs/architecture.mddocs/adr/- Primitive owner packages under
packages/.
- Tests and examples for the primitive under review.
Advisory Context
- Prior hardening audit theme: compare primitive maturity from current user-facing behavior, not assumed symmetry with trails.
- Primitive parity findings should separate deliberate scope, agent ergonomics debt, and real implementation gaps before recommending docs, examples, Warden coverage, query support, or no change.
Must Not
- Do not force every primitive to have trail-equivalent surfaces, examples, or Warden rules.
- Do not turn layer v1 design questions into automatic enforcement.
- Do not create public API solely for symmetry.
- Do not call missing parity a bug without proving a user-facing or agent-facing failure mode.
Output
Return:
- Primitive and maturity dimension reviewed.
- Evidence from docs, code, tests, and topo/query behavior.
- Classification of the gap.
- Recommended action or no-op decision.
- Follow-up issue scope if implementation is warranted.
