Add Convention

add-convention

Add a convention — but only after assessing whether it should exist and where it belongs. This skill is a gatekeeper and a router, not a stenographer.

Step 0 — Preconditions and context

1. Confirm the repo is bootstrapped.
2. Read CONVENTIONS.md and AGENTS.md in full so you can detect overlap with existing rules and judge fit.

Step 0.5 — Assessment (run first)

Run the shared assessment protocol; the triage (Step 1) and routing (Step 2) questions are asked under it:

• Opt-out gate first. Ask whether to run the assessment or skip to drafting. Recommend running it when the request arrived with little or no context; recommend skipping when the convention and its home are already clear.
• Ask questions one at a time, each with a recommended option and a one-line reason; wait for each answer.
• Use structured selection (single- or multiple-choice). If the host exposes a structured single-/multi-select question tool, use it and mark the recommended option; otherwise list options A/B/C in plain text and name the recommended one. Use free text only where an enumerable set is impossible (e.g. the exact wording).
• The operator decides. Never proceed past a question without an answer, and never guess scope when invoked with no context.

Questions (skip any the request already answers):

1. Worth codifying? — yes (recurring, stable, testable) or no (one-off, duplicate, churn-prone, vague). Recommended: per the Step 1 triage; this question gates the rest.
2. Home — AGENTS.md hard rule / CONVENTIONS.md guidance / GLOSSARY.md term / actually a decision (hand off to the new-adr skill). Recommended: per the rule's nature (see Step 2).
3. Enforce in the verify gate? — yes / no. Recommended: no, unless the rule is mechanically checkable.
4. Wording — free text (the rule statement itself).

Step 1 — Assess: is this worth codifying?

Apply triage. Recommend against adding when:

• It is already covered (explicitly or implicitly) by an existing convention — point to it instead of duplicating.
• It is a one-off, not a recurring decision — codifying it adds noise.
• It is likely to churn — premature rules become stale cruft.
• It is too vague to be testable or actionable as written.

Recommend for adding when it is a recurring decision whose ambiguity causes rework, it is stable, and it can be stated so an agent can follow it without further interpretation. State your recommendation and the reason before doing anything.

Step 2 — Route: where does it belong?

Decide the home, and explain the choice:

• Hard rule agents must obey → a bullet in AGENTS.md §Hard rules, with the substance in CONVENTIONS.md. Use for non-negotiable constraints.
• Authoring / process guidance → a section in CONVENTIONS.md. Use for "how we do things" that informs but doesn't gate.
• Shared term / definition → GLOSSARY.md (if the repo has one).
• It is actually a decision, not a convention (an architectural, product, or technology choice with alternatives and consequences) → this is an ADR. Stop and offer the new-adr skill; do not bury a decision in CONVENTIONS.

If a convention is a triage/process rule (e.g. how incoming work is triaged), prefer CONVENTIONS.md with a hard-rule bullet in AGENTS.md only for the parts that are non-negotiable.

Step 3 — Draft and confirm

Draft the exact wording for its home file. Keep it tight, testable, and in the repo's language. Show the diff. Confirm before writing.

Step 4 — Write and commit

Apply the edit(s). If a convention rises to a hard rule, ensure AGENTS.md and CONVENTIONS.md stay consistent. Conventional Commit (docs: ...); no ADR touched means no Rationale: footer is required, but add one if the repo's contract asks for it on convention changes.

Source: EvolveHQ/docflow — distributed by TomeVault.