/module-governance

name: module-governance
description: >-
  Establish or maintain a business module's local agent instructions, domain-context links, and interface ownership when implementing a new module or changing its responsibilities. Reuse project-level rules and existing ECC workflows; ordinary bug fixes, styling, and read-only design discussions do not start module documentation setup.
metadata:
  origin: ECC

Module Governance

Connect module-level working rules to existing domain language, contracts, and decisions. This is an orchestration skill, not a second DDD methodology or an automatic documentation generator.

When to Activate

• The user asks to implement a new business module, without needing to name this skill.
• The user asks to document an existing module or maintain a confirmed responsibility change.
• An authorized module change needs local instructions and canonical knowledge pointers.

Do not start setup for an ordinary bug, styling change, internal refactor with unchanged boundaries, or a new directory/UI component that simply inherits parent conventions. For design discussion or an audit alone, inspect and report without creating files. Intent-based selection is not a background hook and does not grant permission for unrelated code, commits, pushes, or business choices.

How It Works

1. Discover the boundary before creating documents

Read applicable project and ancestor harness instructions, the existing map, requirements, relevant code, and contracts. Identify the module's responsibilities, non-responsibilities, state ownership, and actual consumers. Directory names alone do not establish a bounded context. Surface material ambiguities instead of inventing business rules.

For an existing boundary change, use `change-impact` first. Its read-only and authorization constraints still apply; do not run an unrelated development workflow.

2. Separate project-wide rules from local rules

The project-level instruction source owns global constraints, module navigation, and cross-module collaboration. A local `AGENTS.md` owns only additional module constraints: responsibilities, state ownership, public-interface pointers, and verification entry points. Local rules cannot waive project-wide constraints.

Reuse an established `CLAUDE.md` or other active harness surface instead of forcing a rename or maintaining two copies. If parent instructions already cover the module and no local rule is missing, link that source and do not create a redundant local file. Follow an existing explicit local-entrypoint requirement. Do not claim that a harness automatically loads every nested instruction file.

3. Reuse the existing knowledge owners

| Information | Existing ECC owner | |---|---| | Stable terminology and concept relationships | `context-and-decisions`, using the existing glossary or context role | | Hard-to-reverse decisions and rationale | `architecture-decision-records`, through the existing context handoff | | Cross-boundary machine-checkable interfaces | `contract-first` | | Documentation navigation and lifecycle | `living-docs-governance` | | Affected consumers and boundary-change evidence | `change-impact` |

Load the applicable skill when its work is needed; do not duplicate its method here. Keep terminology in the relevant existing `CONTEXT.md` or equivalent, not in AGENTS. Frontend and backend in the same business context can share that glossary; UI-specific working rules may be local without creating a glossary per page. Reuse existing contracts and ADRs by reference, not by copying their bodies.

4. Maintain only the authorized records

Within the user's requested module work, update the smallest missing local rules and confirmed context entries. Use `living-docs-governance` for affected navigation and lifecycle updates, retaining its approval requirement for new top-level artifacts. Do not create empty files to meet a two-file quota. When implementation does not yet exist, label the boundary as confirmed design with code unverified; do not declare documentation/code consistency from prose alone.

5. Verify both meaning and links

Compare each claimed owner, interface, and constraint with code, canonical contracts, and executable evidence. Report contradictions for owner resolution; do not rewrite the rules merely to match an accidental implementation.

Resolve relative links from **each referencing document's directory**, not the terminal working directory. Resolve the installed `docs-governance` skill path and run its existing read-only link check as an agreed verification step:

python3 <docs-governance-skill>/scripts/audit-docs.py --root <repository> --scope modules --module <module-directory>

Confirm that the audit scanned the changed local instructions, context, and navigation; check its link results and exit code. Fix broken references and rerun, without creating empty targets. If the script is unavailable or excludes a target, report that target as unverified. A passing business test does not prove links are correct, and an existing same-named file may still be the wrong knowledge owner.

Examples

• **“Implement an inventory module.”** Inspect existing boundaries; add local

rules only for genuinely new constraints; reuse the domain glossary and API contract; link them from existing navigation; verify code and source-relative links.

• **“Should payments become a separate module?”** Explain boundary options and

evidence without writing files or treating the discussion as implementation approval.

• **“Fix the inventory badge color.”** Read applicable instructions and fix the

requested UI behavior; do not generate AGENTS, CONTEXT, or ADR documents.

• **“Audit module documentation.”** Use the existing read-only audit and semantic

review; a missing local file is not by itself permission to create one.

Anti-Patterns

• A mandatory AGENTS/CONTEXT pair for every directory or frontend page.
• Duplicating global con