build: take .NET SDK 11.0.100-rc.2.26504.105

.agents/skills/purview-architecture-testing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+---
+name: purview-architecture-testing
+description: >-
+  Use when adding, changing or debugging architecture tests in a .NET solution - dependency-direction
+  rules, forbidden framework references, project naming checks, cycle detection - or when a boundary
+  keeps being broken in review and should fail the build instead. Adopts Purview.Architecture.Testing
+  and a single policy file rather than hand-maintained lists.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  author: Purview-Dev
+  version: "2.0"
+---
+
+# Purview architecture testing
+
+A boundary that only review enforces is a boundary that erodes. The job of this skill is to turn a
+rule a reviewer keeps repeating into a test that fails the build, **without** producing a wall of
+brittle assertions that everyone disables six months later.
+
+Prerequisite: know what the projects are *for*. See `purview-architecture`.
+
+## 1. Only test a rule that is real
+
+Before writing anything, answer: **has this rule been broken, or is it certain to be?**
+
+A test for a dependency nobody would plausibly add is cost with no benefit. Good candidates:
+
+- A direction that has already been violated once.
+- A boundary that is load-bearing - Core staying free of EF Core, Composition being referenced by
+  nothing.
+- A rule a newcomer cannot infer from the code.
+
+Bad candidates: anything the compiler already enforces, and style preferences dressed up as
+architecture.
+
+## 2. Adopt the package; define the policy once
+
+The failure mode of architecture tests is a dependency matrix written twice - once in a wiki table and
+once in assertions - which then disagree. The prose is the copy that drifts, because nothing fails
+when it is wrong.
+
+So do not write the rule engine. `Purview.Architecture.Testing` ships it, so the matrix, naming,
+sibling-independence, composition, forbidden-package, cycle, test-reference and waiver rules are
+defined once and shared. Adoption is two files.
+
+**A policy** at `.config/architecture-policy.json`, pointing at the published schema so an editor
+validates it as you type:
+
+```json
+{
+  "$schema": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/purview-dev/build-sdk/main/architecture-policy.schema.json",
+  "version": 1,
+  "sourceRoots": ["src"],
+  "responsibilities": [
+    {
+      "name": "Core",
+      "aliases": ["Domain"],
+      "category": "domain",
+      "purpose": "The domain model, its invariants and its rules.",
+      "mayDependOn": ["Shared"],
+      "mustNotDependOn": ["Application", "Persistence", "Composition"],
+      "forbiddenPackagePrefixes": ["Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore", "Microsoft.AspNetCore"]
+    }
+  ],
+  "waivers": []
+}
+```
+
+**One derived test class:**
+
+```csharp
+[InheritsTests]
+public sealed class ArchitectureTests : PurviewArchitectureTests;
+```
+
+That is the whole of the adoption. Each rule is a separate test, so a failure names the rule rather
+than collapsing the set into one assertion, and the package validates the policy against its schema
+first - a policy that does not match the schema may be silently missing a rule.
+
+The build-sdk ships a skill for the package itself, `purview-buildsdk-architecture-tests`, which is
+authoritative on its API and rule ids. Read it rather than this page when you are extending or
+debugging the package.
+
+Then add a test that the documentation matches the policy, so the table in the wiki is falsifiable
+too. Full worked example:
+[Project Responsibilities](https://github.com/purview-dev/engineering-playbook/blob/main/docs/wiki/Project-Responsibilities.md).
+
+## 3. Read project files, and assemblies
+
+Two sources, because they catch different things:
+
+| Source | Catches | Misses |
+| -- | -- | -- |
+| `.csproj` `ProjectReference` | The reference a reviewer actually added | A dependency arriving transitively |
+| Compiled assembly references | A dependency that arrived indirectly | Intent — it cannot tell direct from transitive |
+
+The package's rules read the **project files**, because a declared `ProjectReference` is what a
+reviewer adds and what the policy governs. Add a small hand-written test that reads the **compiled
+assemblies** for the leak a project file cannot show - a namespace from the wrong layer reaching a
+public type.
+
+Classify a project by the **first segment** of its name, so `Persistence.SqlServer` and `Persistence`
+are both Persistence - qualification is a naming choice, never a different rule. The package does
+this for you; a hand-written assembly test must do it too.
+
+## 4. The rules worth having
+
+| Rule | What it catches |
+| -- | -- |
+| Dependency matrix | Core referencing Persistence; Application referencing a concrete provider |
+| Nothing references Composition | A circular implementation choice |
+| Sibling independence | `Providers.GitHub` reaching into `Providers.AzureDevOps` |
+| Forbidden package prefixes | EF Core in Core; ASP.NET hosting in a domain project |
+| Cycle detection | A graph that MSBuild rejects with an unreadable message |
+| Catch-all names | `Infrastructure`, `Services`, `Helpers` appearing as project names |
+| No production → test reference | A test helper leaking into shipped code |
+
+The package provides all of these. Do not re-implement one; change the policy instead.
+
+## 5. Write failures someone can act on
+
+This is what decides whether the suite survives. A failure must name:
+
+1. The offending project.
+2. The rule violated.
+3. The specific reference that broke it.
+4. The direction the dependency *should* run.
+5. The likely fix.
+
+```text
+'Application' (Application) references 'Persistence.SqlServer' (Persistence), but Application
+must not depend on Persistence. Invert it: Persistence may depend on Application, or introduce
+an abstraction that Application owns and Persistence implements.
+```
+
+Not `Expected collection to be empty`. Collect every violation and report them as a numbered list -
+one test run should show all of them, not the first. The package already reports this way; keep the
+same standard in any rule you add.
+
+## 6. Waivers, not suppressions
+
+A repository that predates the policy will violate it. Deleting the test or adding a blanket
+`#pragma` makes the policy a lie. Record the departure in the policy instead:
+
+```json
+{
+  "project": "Infrastructure",
+  "mapsTo": "Adapters",
+  "rules": ["naming"],
+  "reason": "Holds one adapter, predates the catalogue; renaming churns the wiki and docs for no gain.",
+  "reviewedOn": "2026-10-15"
+}
+```
+
+The package tests the waivers themselves: each must name a project that still exists, a rule, and a
+substantive reason. A waiver for a deleted project is dead weight that hides the next one.
+
+Critically, a waiver excuses **the narrowest thing possible** - usually the name. `mapsTo` keeps the
+project classified so every dependency rule still applies to it. Prefer a waiver to
+`SkipRule`, which removes a rule for the whole repository with no record.
+
+## 7. Conventions
+
+- TUnit, matching the repository's other tests, adopted through `PurviewArchitectureTests` with
+  `[InheritsTests]`.
+- Arrange/Act/Assert, one behaviour per test.
+- Let the package find the repository root - it probes upward for the policy and stops at the `.git`
+  boundary. Override `RepositoryRoot` only when the policy does not sit above the test binary.
+- Keep the policy file free of anything a rule cannot read; a field no rule consults is a rule that
+  looks enforced and is not.
+
+## Checks before you answer
+
+- Is every rule you added one that has been, or will be, broken?
+- Is the matrix defined once, in the policy, with the documentation checked against it?
+- Does each failure name the fix, not just the fact?
+- Did you record a waiver rather than weaken a rule for existing code?
+
+## See also
+
+- `purview-architecture` — what the projects are for, and how they are named
+- `purview-buildsdk-architecture-tests` — the package's own skill, authoritative on its API
+- [Architecture as Tests](https://github.com/purview-dev/engineering-playbook/blob/main/docs/wiki/Architecture-As-Tests.md)

.agents/skills/purview-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+---
+name: purview-architecture
+description: >-
+  Use when deciding the shape of a .NET solution that uses Purview libraries — how many projects,
+  whether to add a repository or CQRS layer, where validation lives — or before generating substantial
+  implementation code. Establishes project context first, then applies DRY, KISS and architecture
+  proportional to the actual requirements rather than to an enterprise reference diagram.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  author: Purview-Dev
+  version: "1.0"
+---
+
+# Purview architecture
+
+The job of this skill is to stop two failures that cost far more than they look:
+
+- **Architecture bought in advance.** Four projects, a repository interface and a mapping layer for an
+  application that has one table and one caller.
+- **A recommendation made without context.** Advice about database-side GUID generation given to a
+  stateless CLI, or a Clean Architecture split proposed for a 300-line utility.
+
+So: establish context, then choose proportionally. Both steps are mandatory, and the first one is the
+one that gets skipped.
+
+## 1. Establish context before deciding
+
+Before recommending a structure, adding a project, or generating substantial code, you must know four
+things. **Read them out of the repository first** — asking a user a question the code already answers
+is the most common way this skill is applied badly.
+
+| Dimension | Read it from | Ask only if |
+| -- | -- | -- |
+| Complexity (small / medium / large) | Number of functional areas, integrations and external consumers — not file count | The requirements are genuinely not written down anywhere |
+| Project type | SDK attribute, `OutputType`, `Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web`, an AppHost project, a `Main` | The repository is empty |
+| Persistence | `PackageReference` to an EF Core provider, `DbContext`, a connection string, a `Purview.Containers` resource | Persistence is being introduced now |
+| Telemetry | `Purview.Telemetry.SourceGenerator`, `ILogger` injection, `ActivitySource`, an OTLP exporter | Nothing is configured and you are about to add it |
+
+Identifier generation is a **conditional** dimension: resolve it only when persistence exists *and*
+GUID keys are in play. See `purview-persistence`.
+
+Judge complexity on requirements, not size. A 2,000-line CLI with one output format is small. A
+900-line service that reconciles three upstream systems and owns money movement is not.
+
+**Do not re-ask.** A dimension answered by repository configuration, existing source, a project file,
+an earlier turn in the conversation, or a recorded architectural decision is answered. Ask concise,
+targeted questions only for the unknowns that change your recommendation — and if nothing changes,
+ask nothing.
+
+Full decision procedure: `references/project-context-discovery.md`.
+
+## 2. Choose proportionally
+
+| Scale | Shape | What you still do not add |
+| -- | -- | -- |
+| Small | One project, or two when a test project needs a non-trivial subject. Direct implementations. | Repository over `DbContext`, CQRS, a mapping layer, speculative interfaces |
+| Medium | Explicit boundaries where complexity already hurts — usually a domain project and a host | Event sourcing, a generic infrastructure framework, a second infrastructure implementation nobody asked for |
+| Large | Modularity, independent infrastructure implementations, enforceable boundaries (see the playbook's Architecture-As-Tests page) | Patterns adopted for symmetry rather than for a named problem |
+
+Architecture is allowed to arrive late. A boundary added when the second caller appears is cheap; a
+boundary added in anticipation of a second caller that never appears is permanent.
+
+**Never add a project for symmetry.** "Domain, Application, Infrastructure, API" is a response to a
+problem, not a starting position. If you cannot name the failure a layer prevents in this codebase,
+do not add the layer.
+
+Full guidance and the per-pattern justification tests: `references/proportional-architecture.md`.
+
+## 3. Name what you do create
+
+A project name states a **responsibility**, optionally qualified by an implementation:
+
+```text
+<Responsibility>[.<Implementation>]
+```
+
+The responsibility decides the rules; the qualifier never changes them. Three rules people usually
+get wrong:
+
+- **Do not qualify a single implementation.** `Persistence` is correct even when it uses SQL Server.
+  Rename when a second provider arrives, not in anticipation.
+- **Do not create an empty parent.** `Persistence.SqlServer` + `Persistence.PostgreSql` with nothing
+  shared need no `Persistence` project.
+- **Multiple implementations do not require multiple assemblies.** Two small adapters with the same
+  dependencies belong in one project.
+
+Never use a *category* as a project name — `Infrastructure`, `Services`, `Managers`, `Models`,
+`Helpers`, `Common`. Nothing can be excluded from a category, so it grows without limit. And never
+rename an established project just to match canonical terminology; `Domain`, `UseCases` and
+`Integrations` are recognised aliases.
+
+Responsibility catalogue, dependency matrix and the naming decision tree:
+`references/project-responsibilities.md`.
+
+## 4. Check the direction
+
+`A → B` means **A depends on B at compile time** — not a runtime call, a DI registration, an HTTP
+request or an Aspire orchestration edge. Confusing those is the most common source of a wrong answer
+about whether a dependency is allowed.
+
+The rules that matter most:
+
+- Core depends on nothing but `Shared`.
+- Application never references a concrete `Persistence`, `Providers` or `Adapters` project.
+- Composition references implementations; **nothing references Composition** except a host.
+- Sibling implementations (`Providers.GitHub`, `Providers.AzureDevOps`) stay independent.
+- Persistence owns migration *definitions*; `Migrator` owns their *execution*. Production API startup
+  does not apply schema migrations.
+
+When a boundary is worth having, make it fail the build rather than the review — see
+`purview-architecture-testing`.
+
+## 5. DRY, applied where it pays
+
+Reuse the Purview libraries when they remove a real source of truth, not for coverage:
+
+| Concern | Library | Use it when |
+| -- | -- | -- |
+| Operation outcomes without exceptions for control flow | `Purview.Results` | Failures are expected and the caller must handle them |
+| Primitive obsession, validated identity types | `Purview.ValueObjects` | A value has rules that would otherwise be re-checked at each boundary |
+| Schema shared with a TypeScript client | `Purview.ZodSharp` | A contract is duplicated between C# and TypeScript today |
+| Local dependencies for dev and integration tests | `Purview.Containers` | Tests need a real database, queue or emulator |
+| Logging, tracing and metrics from one declaration | `Purview.Telemetry.SourceGenerator` | Always — see `purview-telemetry` |
+
+Duplication that matters: validation repeated per entry point, a domain rule restated in the UI,
+configuration bound in two places, two types that both claim to be the truth. Duplication that does
+not: two similar-looking methods that answer to different owners.
+
+## 6. Telemetry is not an advanced topic
+
+Recommend instrumentation from the first commit, at every project size. A small application gets
+small telemetry — it does not get none. See `purview-telemetry`.
+
+## Checks before you answer
+
+- Did you read the four context dimensions rather than ask for them?
+- Can you name, for each project and each abstraction you are proposing, the failure it prevents here?
+- Is anything in your proposal there only because a reference architecture has it?
+- Did you include telemetry?
+
+## See also
+
+- `purview-telemetry` — instrumentation at every scale
+- `purview-persistence` — storage and GUID-key guidance, only when persistence is real
+- [Engineering Principles](https://github.com/purview-dev/engineering-playbook/blob/main/docs/wiki/Engineering-Principles.md)
+- [Adopting This At Your Scale](https://github.com/purview-dev/engineering-playbook/blob/main/docs/wiki/Adopting-This-At-Your-Scale.md)