feat(skills): add ce:compound-refresh skill for learning and pattern maintenance

docs/solutions/skill-design/compound-refresh-skill-improvements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+---
+title: "ce:compound-refresh skill redesign for autonomous maintenance without live user context"
+category: skill-design
+date: 2026-03-13
+module: plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-compound-refresh
+component: SKILL.md
+tags:
+  - skill-design
+  - compound-refresh
+  - maintenance-workflow
+  - drift-classification
+  - subagent-architecture
+  - platform-agnostic
+severity: medium
+description: "Redesign ce:compound-refresh to handle autonomous drift triage, in-skill replacement via subagents, and smart scoping without relying on live problem-solving context that ce:compound expects."
+related:
+  - docs/solutions/plugin-versioning-requirements.md
+  - https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/pull/260
+  - https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/issues/204
+  - https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/issues/221
+---
+
+## Problem
+
+The initial `ce:compound-refresh` skill had several design issues discovered during real-world testing:
+
+1. Interactive questions never triggered the proper tool (AskUserQuestion) because the instruction used a weak "when available" qualifier
+2. Auto-archive criteria contradicted a "always ask before archiving" rule in a later phase
+3. Broad scope (9+ docs) asked the user to choose an area blindly without providing analysis
+4. The Replace flow tried to hand off to `ce:compound`, which expects fresh problem-solving context the user doesn't have months later
+5. Subagents used shell commands for file existence checks, triggering permission prompts
+6. No way to run the skill unattended (e.g., on a schedule) — every run required user interaction
+
+## Root Cause
+
+Five independent design issues, each with a distinct root cause:
+
+1. **Hardcoded tool name with escape hatch.** Saying "Use AskUserQuestion when available" gave the model permission to skip the tool and just output text. Also non-portable to Codex and other platforms.
+2. **Contradictory rules across phases.** Phase 2 defined auto-archive criteria. Phase 3 said "always ask before archiving" with no exception. The model followed Phase 3.
+3. **Question before evidence.** The skill prompted scope selection before gathering any information about which areas were most stale or interconnected.
+4. **Unsatisfied precondition in cross-skill handoff.** `ce:compound` expects a recently solved problem with fresh context. A maintenance refresh has investigation evidence instead — equivalent data, different shape.
+5. **No tool preference guidance for subagents.** Without explicit instruction, subagents defaulted to bash for file operations.
+6. **Interactive-only design.** Every phase assumed a user was present. No way to run autonomously for scheduled maintenance or hands-off sweeps.
+
+## Solution
+
+### 1. Platform-agnostic interactive questions
+
+Reference "the platform's interactive question tool" as the concept, with concrete examples:
+
+```markdown
+Ask questions **one at a time** — use the platform's interactive question tool
+(e.g. `AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex) and
+**stop to wait for the answer** before continuing.
+```
+
+The "stop to wait" language removes the escape hatch. The examples help each platform's model select the right tool.
+
+### 2. Auto-archive exemption for unambiguous cases
+
+Phase 3 now defers to Phase 2's auto-archive criteria:
+
+```markdown
+You are about to Archive a document **and** the evidence is not unambiguous
+(see auto-archive criteria in Phase 2). When auto-archive criteria are met,
+proceed without asking.
+```
+
+### 3. Smart triage for broad scope
+
+When 9+ candidate docs are found, triage before asking:
+
+1. **Inventory** — read frontmatter, group by module/component/category
+2. **Impact clustering** — dense clusters of interconnected learnings + pattern docs are higher-impact than isolated docs
+3. **Spot-check drift** — check whether primary referenced files still exist
+4. **Recommend** — present the highest-impact cluster with rationale
+
+Key insight: "code changed recently" is NOT a reliable staleness signal. Missing references in a high-impact cluster is the strongest signal.
+
+### 4. Replacement subagents instead of ce:compound handoff
+
+By the time a Replace is identified, Phase 1 investigation has already gathered the evidence that `ce:compound` would research:
+- The old learning's claims
+- What the current code actually does
+- Where and why the drift occurred
+
+A replacement subagent writes the successor directly using `ce:compound`'s document format (frontmatter, problem, root cause, solution, prevention). Run sequentially — one at a time — because each may read significant code.
+
+When evidence is insufficient (e.g., entire subsystem replaced, new architecture too complex to understand from investigation alone), mark as stale and recommend `ce:compound` after the user's next encounter with that area.
+
+### 5. Dedicated file tools over shell commands
+
+Added to subagent strategy:
+
+```markdown
+Subagents should use dedicated file search and read tools for investigation —
+not shell commands. This avoids unnecessary permission prompts and is more
+reliable across platforms.
+```
+
+### 6. Autonomous mode for scheduled/unattended runs
+
+Added `mode:autonomous` argument support so the skill can run without user interaction (e.g., on a schedule, in CI, or when the user just wants a hands-off sweep).
+
+Key design decisions:
+- **Explicit opt-in only.** `mode:autonomous` must be in the arguments. Auto-detection based on tool availability was rejected because a user in an interactive agent without a question tool (e.g., Cursor, Windsurf) is still interactive — they just use plain-text replies.
+- **Conservative confidence.** Borderline cases that would get a user question in interactive mode get marked stale in autonomous mode. Err toward stale-marking over incorrect action.
+- **Detailed report as deliverable.** Since no user was present, the output report includes full rationale for each action so a human can review after the fact.
+- **Process everything.** No scope narrowing questions — if no scope hint provided, process all docs. For broad scope, process clusters in impact order without asking.
+
+## Prevention
+
+### Skill review checklist additions
+
+These five patterns should be checked during any skill review:
+
+1. **No hardcoded tool names** — All tool references use capability-first language with platform examples and a plain-text fallback
+2. **No contradictory rules across phases** — Trace each action type through all phases; verify absolute language ("always," "never") is not contradicted elsewhere
+3. **No blind user questions** — Every question presented to the user is informed by evidence the agent gathered first
+4. **No unsatisfied cross-skill preconditions** — Every skill handoff verifies the target skill's preconditions are met by the calling context
+5. **No shell commands for file operations in subagents** — Subagent instructions explicitly prefer dedicated tools over shell commands
+6. **Autonomous mode for long-running skills** — Any skill that could run unattended should support an explicit opt-in mode with conservative confidence and detailed reporting
+
+### Key anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Better pattern |
+|---|---|
+| "Use the AskUserQuestion tool when available" | "Use the platform's interactive question tool (e.g. AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex)" |
+| Defining auto-archive conditions, then "always ask before archiving" | Single-source-of-truth: define the rule once, reference it elsewhere |
+| "Which area should we review?" before any investigation | Triage first, recommend with evidence, let user confirm or redirect |
+| "Create a successor learning through ce:compound" during a refresh | Replacement subagent writes directly using gathered evidence |
+| No tool guidance for subagents | "Use dedicated file search and read tools, not shell commands" |
+| Auto-detecting "no question tool = headless" | Explicit `mode:autonomous` argument — interactive agents without question tools are still interactive |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **PR #260**: The PR containing all these improvements
+- **Issue #204**: Platform-agnostic tool references (AskUserQuestion dependency)
+- **Issue #221**: Motivating issue for maintenance at scale
+- **PR #242**: ce:audit (detection counterpart, closed)
+- **PR #150**: Established subagent context-isolation pattern

plugins/compound-engineering/README.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ AI-powered development tools that get smarter with every use. Make each unit of
 | Component | Count |
 |-----------|-------|
 | Agents | 28 |
-| Commands | 22 |
+| Commands | 23 |
 | Skills | 20 |
 | MCP Servers | 1 |
 
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ Core workflow commands use `ce:` prefix to unambiguously identify them as compou
 | `/ce:review` | Run comprehensive code reviews |
 | `/ce:work` | Execute work items systematically |
 | `/ce:compound` | Document solved problems to compound team knowledge |
+| `/ce:compound-refresh` | Refresh stale or drifting learnings and decide whether to keep, update, replace, or archive them |
 
 > **Deprecated aliases:** `/workflows:plan`, `/workflows:work`, `/workflows:review`, `/workflows:brainstorm`, `/workflows:compound` still work but show a deprecation warning. Use `ce:*` equivalents.