/delivery-bootstrap

name: delivery-bootstrap
description: "Use when starting implementation on a new or unfamiliar codebase. Auto-detects tech stack and sets up development context."
metadata:
  instruction_budget: "54"
  framework_dependency: "mycelium"
  framework_dependency_note: "This skill is designed to run within the Mycelium framework (https://github.com/haabe/mycelium). Standalone use will skip the canvas state, theory gates, and harness behavior the skill assumes. Install: /plugin install mycelium@haabe-mycelium."

Delivery Bootstrap Skill

Just-in-Time tech stack detection and setup.

Workflow

1. **Check product_type** from `.claude/diamonds/active.yml`:

• If `product_type` is set (from `/mycelium:interview`), use it to determine the delivery profile.
• If not set, scan for indicators per `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/jit-tooling/detector.md` Step 1b:
• Curriculum/lesson plans, LMS config -> `content_course`
• Manuscript/chapters, editorial calendar -> `content_publication`
• Video scripts, subtitle files, podcast RSS -> `content_media`
• Prompt templates, model configs, agent definitions -> `ai_tool`
• Service blueprints, pricing docs -> `service_offering`
• If non-software product_type detected: skip software tooling detection (Steps 2-3 below), configure product-type-appropriate validation instead, and proceed to Step 4.

1b. **Scan project root** for technology indicators (software and ai_tool with code):

• Package files: package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Gemfile, pom.xml, build.gradle
• Config files: tsconfig.json, .eslintrc, .prettierrc, rustfmt.toml, .editorconfig
• CI/CD: .github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, Jenkinsfile, Dockerfile
• Framework indicators: next.config.js, nuxt.config.ts, angular.json, etc.

2. **Identify stack components** (software/ai_tool with code):

• Language(s) and version(s)
• Framework(s)
• Package manager
• Test runner and framework
• Linter and formatter
• Build tool
• CI/CD platform
• Database (if detectable)
• Deployment target

3. **Verify tooling works**:

• Run build command
• Run test command
• Run lint command
• Note any failures or warnings

3a. **Offer the feedback-loop tooling menu** (OFFER-MENU layer):

• For the detected stack, present the best-practice menu from `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/jit-tooling/security-scanning.md` (SAST, dep audit, secrets, test runner, linter), **ordered smallest-friction first** (typically: secrets scan → linter → SAST → dep audit → container scan).
• Frame as: *"Best practice is to have tools help you shorten the feedback loop. For your detected stack ({lang}), the menu is: {list}. Want help finding and configuring any of these?"*
• **Never auto-install. Never pick rulesets on the user's behalf.** Adoption is per-tool, per-consent. The user owns the choice. See `feedback-jit-nudge-not-push` (founder principle, 2026-05-26).
• If user declines or defers, record the offer in `active-stack.yml` under `tooling_offers_declined` with timestamp — later shape-triggers (Step 3b) can re-surface the relevant subset.

3b. **Risk-shape re-offer** (RISK-TRIGGERED layer):

• Scan code for risk-shape patterns. If any fires AND the corresponding tool was declined in 3a, re-offer the relevant subset with the risk as citation. Patterns:
• **AUTH shape**: `/login`, `/auth`, `/register`, `password`, `session`, `token`, `jwt`, `oauth`, `x-user-id` and similar trust-bearing headers → re-offer SAST + suggest `/mycelium:threat-model` and `/mycelium:security-review`. **SAST blind spot**: identity-trust design (e.g., `x-user-id` header trusted as auth) is NOT catchable by SAST tools — they don't model intent. Route to `/mycelium:security-review` regardless of whether SAST consent was given.
• **AI shape**: imports from `ai_components` categories per detector.md Step 1c → suggest `/mycelium:xai-check`
• **PII / data shape**: `email`, `ssn`, `phone`, `address`, `payment`, `card`, schema fields matching PII patterns → suggest `/mycelium:privacy-check` + secrets scanner
• **Public endpoint shape**: routes without auth middleware → suggest SAST + DAST. **SAST blind spot**: "no authorization check" is design-level; SAST can flag suspicious patterns but cannot confirm absence-of-intent. Route to `/mycelium:security-review`.
• **File-upload shape**: `upload`, `multipart`, `FormFile`, `ServeFile`, `ServeContent`, `Content-Disposition`, file-system write from request → re-offer SAST + suggest `/mycelium:threat-model` with explicit MIME-allowlist + filename-sanitization + size-cap + overwrite-policy review. **SAST partial coverage**: gosec/semgrep catch path-traversal (`filepath.Join` without `Base`), but cannot catch design flaws (MIME confusion via stored files, public-list disclosure, missing auth).
• Cite the trigger explicitly per the operating contract's attribution rule (Communication Rule 4): `(per: AUTH shape detected at app.py:42 → SAST recommended)`.
• The 4-layer composition (OFFER-MENU + RISK-TRIGGERED + NUDGE-AT-FAILURE + PR-TIME) is derived from a deep-study comparison of 10 adoption approaches (2026-05-26). Strongest single-finding: contextual nudges at decision moments produce ~8× higher detection vs no-nudge baseline (Less is More, arxiv 2202.04586; *consistency_only* — single experimental study). Other layers live in `/mycelium:security-review`, `/mycelium:threat-model`, `/mycelium:reflexion` (NUDGE-AT-FAILURE) and `/mycelium:definition-of-done` (PR-TIME).

4. **Document existing patterns**:

• Code organization (monorepo, src layout, etc.)
• Naming conventions
• Test patterns
• Error handling patterns
• API patterns

5. **Scaffold Architecture Decision Records** (if applicable):

• Check: Does the project have significant architecture decisions ahead? Indicators:
• Multiple competing implementation approaches (e.g., REST vs GraphQL, monolith vs microservices)