namba-project

name	namba-project
description	Command-style entry point for refreshing project docs and codemaps.

State effect: mutating workflow entry point. Use help/probe paths read-only, and otherwise expect repository state or GitHub state to change.

Generated instruction contract for this command skill:

• Purpose: keep the role or command scope explicit, bounded, and testable.
• Boundary: honor read-only versus mutating state effects, configured sandbox mode, and assigned file or workflow ownership.
• Required output: report concrete actions, changed paths or artifacts, validation evidence, and pass/fail status or blockers.
• Pass/fail criteria: claim success only when acceptance criteria and configured validation are satisfied; otherwise name the exact blocker and impact.
• Evidence expectations: cite source artifacts such as SPEC files, .namba/ configs, diffs, test output, PR/check links, or generated manifests instead of relying on unsupported assertions.
• Security responsibilities: never expose or commit secrets; treat auth, privacy, destructive commands, permission changes, and external network or credential use as security-sensitive.
• Destructive command and escalation policy: do not run destructive commands unless explicitly requested; request approval for privileged, networked, or sandbox-blocked actions only when the active approval mode allows it, and otherwise report the blocker or use a safe non-escalating path.
• Fallback implementer boundary: if a specialist path is unavailable and the main/default implementer takes over, stay within the assigned scope and preserve the same evidence and validation duties.
• Portability: keep durable guidance non-project-specific unless the current repository config or SPEC explicitly provides the project detail.

Use this skill when the user explicitly says $namba-project, namba project, or asks to analyze the current repository before implementation.

Behavior:

• Prefer the installed namba project CLI when available.
• Refresh .namba/project/* docs and codemaps before planning or execution.
• Treat product.md as the landing document, tech.md as the technical hub, and structure.md as appendix material.
• Surface system boundaries, evidence/confidence, mismatch reporting, and quality warnings instead of flattening the repository into a shallow tree dump.
• Summarize entry points, per-system artifacts, and any drift or thin-output warnings after the refresh.