# v2.7.0 Key Decisions

Status: Accumulating (feed into release notes at tag time)
Last updated: 2026-03-22

This document captures important design and architecture decisions made during v2.7.0 development. These should inform the public release notes and FAQ section.

## Decision Index

| ID | Decision | Category |
|----|----------|----------|
| D-1 | [Staging and promotion model . discard PACKET.md after promotion](#d-1-pm-skill-builder-staging-and-promotion-model) | F-05 Design |
| D-2 | [Builder naming . `/pm-skill-builder` vs `/agent-skill-builder`](#d-2-builder-naming--pm-skill-builder-vs-agent-skill-builder) | F-05 Design |
| D-3 | [PM Skill lifecycle . three separate skills (Create/Validate/Iterate)](#d-3-pm-skill-lifecycle--three-separate-skills) | F-05 Design |
| D-4 | [CI validation split . enforced vs advisory](#d-4-ci-validation-split--enforced-vs-advisory) | F-05 Design |
| D-5 | [Exclude `docs/internal/**` from release ZIP (M-16)](#d-5-exclude-docsinternal-from-release-zip-m-16) | Infrastructure |
| D-6 | [Efforts are atoms, releases are molecules](#d-6-efforts-are-atoms-releases-are-molecules) | Process |
| D-7 | [Agent assignment framework](#d-7-agent-assignment-framework) | Process |
| D-8 | [Documentation tasks are release-scoped, not effort-tracked](#d-8-documentation-tasks-are-release-scoped-not-effort-tracked) | Process |
| D-9 | [Remaining v2.7.0 task agent assignments](#d-9-remaining-v270-task-agent-assignments) | Process |

---

## D-1: PM Skill Builder staging and promotion model

**Decision**: Drafts go to `_staging/pm-skill-builder/{skill-name}/` (gitignored). On approval, only SKILL.md, TEMPLATE.md, EXAMPLE.md, command file, and AGENTS.md entry are promoted. Staging folder is discarded after promotion. No permanent PACKET.md.

**Why**:
- Drafts are scaffolding . they should never ship to users or clutter the repo.
- PACKET.md (design rationale) is maintainer-facing, not part of the skill's public contract.
- Keeping PACKET.md next to shipped skills mixes authoring history with product artifacts and makes every skill directory heavier forever.
- If a specific design rationale is important long-term, capture it intentionally in the issue, PR, or effort brief . don't make every generated skill carry a permanent packet by default.

**Impact**: Skill directories remain clean (SKILL.md + references/ only). The builder is a scaffolding tool, not a documentation generator.

**Related**: F-05 design doc Section 1 (Step 6-7), effort brief output model section.

---

## D-2: Builder naming . `/pm-skill-builder` vs `/agent-skill-builder`

**Decision**: Two separate skills, both in pm-skills repo.
- `/pm-skill-builder` (F-05) . repo-specific, creates skills aligned with pm-skills architecture
- `/agent-skill-builder` (F-09) . general PM capability for creating agent skills in any context

**Why**: Creating agent skills IS a modern PM capability. Both belong in pm-skills. Clear scope separation: one is repo-specific tooling, the other is a transferable PM skill.

**Impact**: No naming collision. F-09 depends on F-05 (same builder patterns, different scope).

---

## D-3: PM Skill lifecycle . three separate skills

**Decision**: Create (F-05), Validate (F-10), Iterate (F-11) are separate skills, not modes of one skill.

**Why**: One skill, one job. Follows the repo's existing pattern where each skill does one thing well. Modes add complexity and make the builder harder to teach.

**Impact**: F-10 and F-11 are backlog items (#121, #122) that depend on F-05.

---

## D-4: CI validation split . enforced vs advisory

**Decision**: The builder's quality checklist distinguishes between CI-enforced checks (must pass `lint-skills-frontmatter.sh`, `validate-agents-md.sh`, `validate-commands.sh`) and quality-advisory checks (builder-enforced but not CI-gated, like example completeness and output contract presence).

**Why**: Contributors need to know which checks will fail CI vs which are best-practice guidance. Conflating them causes confusion ("CI passed but the skill is low quality" or "why did CI fail on something the docs say is optional?").

**Impact**: SKILL.md Quality Checklist has two tiers. CI checks are the hard gate; quality checks are the builder's additional standard.

---

## D-5: Exclude `docs/internal/**` from release ZIP (M-16)

**Decision**: Modify both release packagers (`build-release.sh` and `build-release.ps1`) to exclude `docs/internal/**` from the published ZIP artifact while keeping internal governance docs tracked in the repo.

**Why**: Internal release governance, effort briefs, and planning documents are maintainer-facing. Users downloading the ZIP should get skills, commands, bundles, and public docs . not internal planning artifacts.

**Impact**: Reduces ZIP size. Internal docs remain in the repo for maintainers but don't ship to users. This also resolves any future concern about staging area content accidentally shipping.

**Related**: M-16 effort brief, GitHub issue #123, commit `0c2e637`.

---

## D-6: Efforts are atoms, releases are molecules

**Decision**: Don't assign release numbers at backlog time. Assign effort IDs, then group into releases at release-planning time.

**Why**: Effort scope and release scope serve different purposes. An effort is a unit of work; a release is a bundle of user-visible changes. Coupling them too early constrains both.

**Impact**: Backlog uses effort IDs (M-12, F-05, etc.). Release assignment is a separate column added when release planning happens. v2.7.0 is the first release planned this way.

---

## D-7: Agent assignment framework

**Decision**: Each effort is assigned to an agent (Claude, Codex, Human) based on the work characteristics. Labels (`agent:codex`, `agent:claude`, `agent:human`) applied to GitHub issues. Effort briefs carry an `Agent:` field.

**Why**: Different agents have different strengths. Codex excels at well-specified implementation tasks. Claude excels at design judgment and creative content. Humans handle external interactions (marketplace submission, community outreach).

**Impact**: Codex gets execution context comments on its issues (read-first files, patterns, constraints). Claude gets design latitude. Human tasks are flagged as quick wins.

---

## D-8: Documentation tasks are release-scoped, not effort-tracked

**Decision**: D-01 (skill anatomy doc) and D-02 (public docs review) live in the v2.7.0 release governance table with agent assignments but do NOT get effort briefs, GitHub issues, or backlog entries.

**Why**:
- They're release prep tasks, not standalone work items that persist beyond v2.7.0
- No design decisions, dependencies, or multi-session complexity
- The effort system (M-xx, F-xx) is for work that needs design review cycles . these are straightforward writing tasks
- Adding effort overhead to simple tasks creates busywork without improving tracking

**How to apply**: Track D-xx tasks in the release governance README only. If a documentation task turns out to be complex enough to need design (e.g., D-01 reveals architectural questions), promote it to an effort at that point.

---

## D-9: v2.7.0 task agent assignments

**Decision**: Agent assignments for the v2.7.0 closing work. Status is updated here as tasks land.

| Task | Agent | Status | Rationale |
|------|-------|--------|-----------|
| F-05 implementation | Claude | Done (`3c50108`, `df794a1`, `a67f144`) | Creative content writing . SKILL.md instructions, EXAMPLE.md narrative, quality judgment on gap analysis language. This is the kind of work where design taste matters. |
| D-01: skill anatomy doc | Claude | Planned | New explanatory document requiring architectural understanding and clear writing for contributors who are new to the project. Claude's strength. |
| D-02: public docs review | Codex | Follow-up needed | Systematic comparison of existing docs against current repo state. Well-defined scope, concrete checks (skill counts, script names, command lists, builder wiring). Codex excels at verification against ground truth. |
| M-16 commit | Codex | Done (`0c2e637`) | Packaging/verification work was already implemented by Codex and then committed. |
| CHANGELOG v2.7.0 | Claude | Pending | Release notes require narrative judgment . what matters to users, how to frame changes. |
| Release tag | Human | Pending | Manual decision point . confirm everything is ready, push the tag. |

**Pattern**: Claude gets writing/design tasks. Codex gets verification/implementation tasks. Human gets external-facing decisions.

---

## Decisions to add later

- Any breaking changes discovered during F-05 implementation
- F-05 functional test results
