alexion
e684ac481e
Adopt the convention that a Module's option path mirrors its directory under modules/, with an index file naming the directory's own segment. - Group agent Modules under modules.agents.*: claude-code (whole directory), pi (flattened to a file), skills (renamed from agent-skills), and gitea-axi under an agents/tools/ subgroup. The agents/ and tools/ folders are pure namespace prefixes with no aggregator enable. - Nest hypridle and hyprlock under modules.desktop.hyprland.*, with hyprland.nix as the index, and update the desktop aggregator. - Remove the obsolete example Module. - Record the convention in CONTEXT.md and ADR 0004, and update the neogaia host, the two live CLAUDE.md gotchas, and the skills Module's intentional Enable-convention exception comment.
45 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
45 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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](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](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](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](SKILL.md) vocabulary and `.claude/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:
|
||
|
||
1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
|
||
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
|
||
3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
|
||
4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
||
5. 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.
|