fpf-skilldesign-audit-name
Generated skill for design/audit-name.
When & Why to Use This Skill
This Claude skill automates the auditing of artifact names against FPF (Functional Pattern Framework) naming standards. It ensures naming consistency and architectural integrity by evaluating names against the P2 Matrix and identifying semantic drift, helping teams maintain a clear and teachable knowledge base.
Use Cases
- Legacy Name Auditing: Systematically reviewing existing artifact names in a project to ensure they align with updated FPF naming patterns.
- Semantic Drift Prevention: Identifying names that have become 'Too Wide' (TW) or 'Too Narrow' (TN) as the underlying artifact's scope has changed over time.
- Architectural Validation: Verifying that names correctly imply the intended 'Bridge' or 'Prototype' and do not create confusion regarding the object's purpose.
- Quality Assurance for Documentation: Checking 'Twin Labels' and 'Minimal Definitional Statements' (MDS) to ensure documentation matches the actual naming implementation.
| name | fpf-skill:design-audit-name |
|---|---|
| description | Generated skill for design/audit-name. |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| allowed_tools | [] |
design/audit-name Kernel
Instructions
Instructions
This skill provides a procedure to audit an existing name against FPF naming standards.
Step 1: Extract Name Card Data
Locate the Name Card or implicit definition for the artifact. Identify:
- Twin Labels
- MDS (Minimal Definitional Statement)
- Original Context of Meaning
Step 2: Verify Provenance (S4)
- Can you trace the name back to an FPF pattern?
- Does the name imply a "Bridge" where none exists? (Alignment Note check).
Step 3: Re-Run P2 Matrix
Assess the name against the 7 Sense-Seeds (S1-S7) in the current context.
- S1 Add: Does adding items still make sense?
- S2 Retrieve: Is retrieval still clear?
- S3 Teach: Is it teachable?
- S4 Provenance: Is origin clear?
- S5 Relations: Do links hold?
- S6 Rep-Change: If format changed, does name break?
- S7 Non-Native: Does it allow non-FPF content if originally intended?
Step 4: Check for Drift
- Too Wide (TW)? Has the artifact grown beyond its name?
- Too Narrow (TN)? Is the name stricter than the usage?
- Wrong Prototype (WP)? Does the name suggest a different kind of object?
Step 5: Verdict
Output one of:
- PASS: Name is healthy.
- WARN: Minor drift; update MDS or consider rename.
- FAIL: Breaking change or confusion; Trigger
design/deprecate-nameanddesign/mint-name.