Loading...
Loading...
Found 5 Skills
Systematic framework for resurrecting and modernizing legacy codebases through archaeology, resurrection, and rejuvenation phases. Activate on "legacy code", "inherited codebase", "no documentation", "technical debt", "resurrect", "modernize". NOT for greenfield projects or well-documented active codebases.
Expert in understanding and navigating legacy codebases. Covers code archaeology techniques, finding hidden knowledge, mapping dependencies, and extracting understanding from code without documentation. Knows how to read the stories that old code tells. Use when "legacy code, old codebase, understand this code, archaeology, what does this do, no documentation, ancient code, " mentioned.
Two-way traceability between commits and tickets. (A) When committing any change, make sure the commit message carries the ticket / work-item number — derive it from the user's words, the branch name, or the current task, ask if unknown (a commit-msg hook is bundled but install it only on explicit request). (B) When the user asks WHY code is the way it is — "why was this changed", "who decided this", "is this hardcode intentional", "ทำไมถึงแก้อันนี้", "มีเหตุผลป่าว" — trace the line through git blame/log to the commit, extract the ticket number from the message, fetch the ticket from the tracker (Azure DevOps, GitHub Issues, JIRA), INCLUDING downloading and reading attached images (requirements often live only in an annotated screenshot), and answer with commit + ticket evidence. Trigger on any commit request in a ticketed repo, on "install commit hook", and on any why-is-this-code-like-this / change-archaeology question — even when the user doesn't mention tickets.
Investigate why code or a design decision exists. Use for rationale, rejected alternatives, regressions, postmortems, historical constraints, and evidence-backed thresholds; use how for runtime behavior.
Answers why code is shaped as it is with an evidence-rated report, tagging each claim [Direct], [Supported], [Inferred], or [Speculative] and closing with a Sources Consulted list that covers git, PRs, tickets, docs, chat, and observability, naming the sources left unchecked. Read-only. Use when the user says "why is it built this way?", or when asked why code is shaped as it is, why a value or limit was chosen, what alternatives were rejected, or what forces shaped a decision, including when the asker offers a guess at the reason. Use it even when commits or PR text are already in context, since a plain answer from them omits the tiers and the unchecked sources. Not for how code works; use explaining-architecture.