--- name: manifold description: Constraint-first development framework overview. USE WHEN learning about Manifold or checking available commands. Individual commands are separate skills - use /m0-init, /m1-constrain, etc. directly. --- # Manifold Constraint-first development framework that makes ALL constraints visible BEFORE implementation. ## Quick Start Each command is a separate skill. Use them directly: ``` /m0-init my-feature # Initialize manifold /m1-constrain my-feature # Discover constraints /m2-tension my-feature # Surface conflicts /m3-anchor my-feature # Backward reasoning /m4-generate my-feature # Create all artifacts /m5-verify my-feature # Validate constraints /m-status # Show current state ``` **Available Skills:** - `/m0-init` - Initialize a constraint manifold - `/m1-constrain` - Interview-driven constraint discovery - `/m2-tension` - Surface and resolve conflicts (`--auto-deps` for v2 dependency detection) - `/m3-anchor` - Backward reasoning from outcome - `/m4-generate` - Generate all artifacts - `/m6-integrate` - Wire artifacts together (v2) - `/m5-verify` - Verify constraints coverage (`--actions` for v2 gap automation) - `/m-status` - Show current state (`--history` for v2 iteration tracking) ## Commands ### /m0-init Initialize a constraint manifold for a feature. **Usage:** `/m0-init [--outcome=""]` **What it does:** - Creates `.manifold/.yaml` - Initializes empty constraint categories (business, technical, UX, security, operational) **Example:** ``` /m0-init payment-retry --outcome="95% retry success for transient failures" ``` --- ### /m1-constrain Interview-driven constraint discovery across 5 categories. **Usage:** `/m1-constrain [--category=]` **Constraint Categories:** 1. **Business** - Revenue, compliance, stakeholders 2. **Technical** - Performance, integration, data 3. **User Experience** - Response times, errors, accessibility 4. **Security** - Data protection, auth, audit 5. **Operational** - Monitoring, SLAs, incidents **Constraint Types:** - **INVARIANT** - Must NEVER be violated - **GOAL** - Should be optimized - **BOUNDARY** - Hard limits **Example:** ``` /m1-constrain payment-retry Discovered: - B1: No duplicate payments (INVARIANT) - B2: 95% success rate (GOAL) - B3: Retry window ≤ 72 hours (BOUNDARY) ``` --- ### /m2-tension Surface and resolve constraint conflicts. **Usage:** `/m2-tension [--resolve]` **Tension Types:** 1. **Direct Conflicts** - Contradictory constraints 2. **Resource Tensions** - Competing for same resources 3. **Trade-off Pairs** - Goals requiring balance 4. **Hidden Dependencies** - Implicit relationships **Why this matters:** Requirements are rarely consistent. Real constraints often conflict: - "Fast response times" vs "Comprehensive validation" - "User-friendly errors" vs "Security through obscurity" - "High availability" vs "Strong consistency" **Example:** ``` /m2-tension payment-retry TENSION DETECTED: - T1: "API response < 200ms" - B1: "No duplicates" (idempotency check adds ~50ms) - Resolution: Cache recent transaction IDs ``` --- ### /m3-anchor Backward reasoning from desired outcome. **Usage:** `/m3-anchor [--outcome=""]` **Process:** 1. Start with desired outcome 2. Ask: "What must be TRUE?" 3. Derive required conditions 4. Identify gaps between current state and requirements 5. Generate solution space **Why backward reasoning?** Forward planning misses implicit requirements. Backward reasoning surfaces them: **Forward:** "Build a retry system" → might miss edge cases **Backward:** "95% retry success" → REQUIRES: - Accurate failure classification - Sufficient retry budget - Stable downstream services - Idempotent operations **Example:** ``` /m3-anchor payment-retry --outcome="95% retry success" For 95% success, what MUST be true? - RT-1: Can distinguish transient from permanent failures - RT-2: Retries are idempotent - RT-3: Sufficient retry budget SOLUTION SPACE: A. Client-side exponential backoff B. Server-side queue with workflow engine C. Hybrid approach ``` --- ### /m4-generate Generate ALL artifacts simultaneously from the constraint manifold. **Usage:** `/m4-generate [--option=] [--artifacts=]` **Artifacts Generated:** - **Code** - Implementation with constraint traceability - **Tests** - Derived from constraints, not code - **Docs** - Design decisions with constraint rationale - **Runbooks** - Operational procedures for failure modes - **Dashboards** - Monitoring for goals and invariants - **Alerts** - Notifications for constraint violations **Why all at once?** Traditional: Code → Tests → Docs → Ops (often forgotten). Manifold: All artifacts derive from the SAME source. **Example:** ``` /m4-generate payment-retry --option=B Generated: - src/retry/payment-retry.ts - src/retry/payment-retry.test.ts - docs/payment-retry.md - ops/runbooks/payment-retry-failure.md - ops/dashboards/payment-retry.json - ops/alerts/payment-retry.yaml ``` --- ### /m5-verify Verify ALL artifacts against ALL constraints. **Usage:** `/m5-verify [--strict]` **Verification Matrix:** | Constraint | Code | Test | Docs | Ops | Status | |------------|------|------|------|-----|--------| | B1: No duplicates | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | SATISFIED | | T1: <200ms | ✓ | ◐ | ✓ | ✓ | PARTIAL | **Example:** ``` /m5-verify payment-retry Constraint Coverage: - INVARIANTS: 3/3 (100%) - GOALS: 4/5 (80%) - BOUNDARIES: 2/4 (50%) Gaps: Add test for ErrorClassifier.classify() ``` --- ### /m6-integrate (v2) Wire generated artifacts together. **Usage:** `/m6-integrate [--check-only] [--auto-wire]` **Flags:** - `--check-only` - Show integration checklist without making changes - `--auto-wire` - Attempt automatic integration where safe **Why this exists:** `/m4-generate` creates artifacts in isolation. Integration (wiring modules together, adding feature flags, updating imports) was manual and error-prone. This command identifies integration points and produces actionable checklists. **Example:** ``` /m6-integrate graph-d-validation INTEGRATION CHECKLIST: [1] Wire WAL into Storage ├── Source: src/storage/wal.rs ├── Target: src/storage/mod.rs ├── Action: Add `pub mod wal;` └── Satisfies: RT-1, T3 [2] Add WAL feature flag ├── Target: Cargo.toml ├── Action: Add `wal = []` to [features] └── Satisfies: T3 ``` --- ### /m-status Show current Manifold state and next recommended action. **Usage:** `/m-status [] [--history] [--diff]` **Flags (v2):** - `--history` - Show full iteration history - `--diff` - Show changes since last iteration **Example:** ``` /m-status MANIFOLD STATUS Feature: payment-retry Phase: ANCHORED (3/5) Constraint Summary: - Constraints: 12 discovered - Invariants: 3 - Goals: 5 - Boundaries: 4 - Tensions: 2 identified, 1 resolved - Solution Space: 3 options Workflow Progress: [✓] /m0-init [✓] /m1-constrain [✓] /m2-tension [✓] /m3-anchor [ ] /m4-generate [ ] /m5-verify Next: /m4-generate payment-retry --option=B ``` --- ## Storage All data stored in `.manifold/` using JSON+Markdown hybrid format: ``` .manifold/ ├── .json # Structure (IDs, types, phases) ├── .md # Content (statements, rationale) └── .verify.json # Verification results ``` > **Legacy YAML format** (`.yaml` files) is still supported for backwards compatibility. ## Task Tracking Manifold ensures tasks are completed through **constraint traceability**: ### Generation Tracking (`/m4-generate`) Every generated artifact is recorded with the constraints it satisfies: ```json { "generation": { "artifacts": [ { "path": "src/retry/PaymentRetryClient.ts", "satisfies": ["RT-1", "RT-3"], "status": "generated" } ], "coverage": { "constraints_addressed": 12, "constraints_total": 12 } } } ``` ### Verification Matrix (`/m5-verify`) Each constraint is checked across all artifacts: ```json { "verification": { "matrix": [ { "constraint": "B1", "code": true, "test": true, "docs": true, "status": "SATISFIED" } ], "gaps": [ { "id": "G1", "constraint": "T2", "action": "Add load test" } ] } } ``` This enables: - **Programmatic CI/CD checks** - Validate `.verify.json` in pipelines - **Gap tracking** - Each gap has an actionable item - **Progress monitoring** - Coverage improves as gaps are addressed --- ## Context Preservation (Hook Setup) To preserve manifold state across context compaction, add to `~/.claude/settings.json`: ```json { "hooks": { "PreCompact": [{ "matcher": "", "hooks": [{ "type": "command", "command": "bun run ~/.claude/hooks/manifold-context.ts" }] }] } } ``` This injects `.manifold/` state before compaction, so Claude remembers: - Current phase for each feature - Constraint counts and coverage - Next recommended action --- ## Philosophy Manifold treats development as **constraint satisfaction**, not feature building: 1. **All constraints exist simultaneously** — business, technical, UX, security, operational, and future failure modes are all present-tense constraints 2. **Surface conflicts early** — find tensions before they become bugs 3. **Reason backward** — from outcome to requirements, not spec to implementation 4. **Single source of truth** — all artifacts derive from the constraint manifold

manifold-m5-verify

Scan your own AI components