Prad Nukala
6406208b35
- 16 cross-shell utilities converted to sh/bash chezmoi executables: ai c2p cp-appid extract_agents fab gdc gh-sonr-org-migrate ghg-clone ghn gho git-summary launch_omp_livediff_overlay lc-elir mdcp mdp pj (ghg-clone not named ghg: unrelated cargo binary owns that name) - cwd/history helpers stay per-shell: yy c cd clip-last + ghg/ghn/gho cd-wrappers in bash/functions/ and zsh/functions/, loaded by rc files - fish keeps only shell-state functions; converted ones now hit PATH - cp-appid ignore gating moved to .local/bin path - dot_agents/skills: 82 skills materialized from dotstate storage so dot_claude skill symlinks resolve on fresh bootstrap; dotstate profile/symlinks.json released .agents/skills .bashrc .zshrc
2.6 KiB
Design It Twice
When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
Uses the vocabulary in SKILL.md — module, interface, seam, adapter, leverage.
Process
1. Frame the problem space
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see DEEPENING.md)
- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
2. Spawn sub-agents
Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a radically different interface for the deepened module.
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from DEEPENING.md, what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
Include both SKILL.md vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
Each sub-agent outputs:
- Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
- Usage example showing how callers use it
- What the implementation hides behind the seam
- Dependency strategy and adapters (see DEEPENING.md)
- Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
3. Present and compare
Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by depth (leverage at the interface), locality (where change concentrates), and seam placement.
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.