Wayfinder

View saved version →

---
name: domain-modeling
description: Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a CONTEXT.md, or recording or editing an ADR.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Domain Modeling

Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the *active* discipline: challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely *reading* `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill: that's a one-line habit any skill can do. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.)

## File structure

Most repos have a single context:

```
/
├── CONTEXT.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/
│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
└── src/
```

If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:

```
/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
├── src/
│   ├── ordering/
│   │   ├── CONTEXT.md
│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
│   └── billing/
│       ├── CONTEXT.md
│       └── docs/adr/
```

Create files lazily: only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.

## During the session

### Challenge against the glossary

When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y. Which is it?"

### Sharpen fuzzy language

When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account': do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."

### Discuss concrete scenarios

When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.

### Cross-reference with code

When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible. Which is right?"

### Update CONTEXT.md inline

When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up: capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).

`CONTEXT.md` should be totally devoid of implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.

### Offer ADRs sparingly

Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:

1. **Hard to reverse**: the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
2. **Surprising without context**: a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
3. **The result of a real trade-off**: there were genuine alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons

If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).

Referenced files: 3

View saved version →

---
name: entry-wayfinder
description: "Use whenever the Wayfinder plugin is selected. Route the request to the intended bundled workflow while keeping all dependencies internal to this plugin."
---

# Wayfinder

This is the public entry workflow for this plugin. The bundled skills below are dependencies, not competing entry points.

## Mandatory routing

Invoke wayfinder as the primary workflow. Let it call bundled grilling, domain-modeling, research, prototype and handoff exactly as written. Use bundled setup only if tracker configuration is missing. Do not shortcut into Build.

If a bundled workflow calls another bundled skill, invoke that local bundled copy. Never require the user to install another plugin to complete this workflow.

## Bundled workflows

- `wayfinder`
- `grilling`
- `domain-modeling`
- `research`
- `prototype`
- `handoff`
- `setup-matt-pocock-skills`

View saved version →

---
name: grilling
description: Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

Interview the user relentlessly until you reach a shared understanding. Map this as a **design tree**: every decision branches into the decisions that hang off it.

Work the tree in **rounds**. The **frontier** is every decision whose prerequisites are already settled: the questions you can ask _now_ without guessing at answers you haven't heard yet. Ask the whole frontier in one round: number each question and give your recommended answer. Then wait for the user's answers before the next round.

Format a round like so:

```
❓ **Q1** - **<question title>**: <question body, might be multiple paragraphs, including multiple choices>

➡️ <your recommended answer>

---

❓ **Q2** - **<question title>**: <question body, might be multiple paragraphs, including multiple choices>

➡️ <your recommended answer>
```

Each round the user answers reshapes the tree: settled decisions push the frontier outward and unblock questions that depended on them. Recompute the frontier and ask the next round. A question whose answer depends on another question still open in this round belongs to a _later_ round, not this one.

Finding _facts_ is your job, never the user's. When a frontier question needs a fact from the environment (filesystem, tools, etc.), dispatch a sub-agent to find it; don't ask the user for anything you could look up yourself. Don't block on it: a running exploration is an unsettled prerequisite, so only the questions downstream of it wait for the sub-agent to report; ask the rest of the frontier now. The _decisions_ are the user's: put each to them and wait.

The session is done when the frontier is empty: every branch of the design tree visited, nothing left silently assumed. Do not act on it until the user confirms you have reached a shared understanding.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: handoff
description: Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
argument-hint: "What will the next session be used for?"
disable-model-invocation: true
---

Write a handoff document summarising the current conversation so a fresh agent can continue the work. Save to the temporary directory of the user's OS - not the current workspace.

Include a "suggested skills" section in the document, naming which skills the next agent should call the Skill tool for.

Do not duplicate content already captured in other artifacts (specs, plans, ADRs, issues, commits, diffs). Reference them by path or URL instead.

Redact any sensitive information, such as API keys, passwords, or personally identifiable information.

If the user passed arguments, treat them as a description of what the next session will focus on and tailor the doc accordingly.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: prototype
description: Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Prototype

A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides the shape.

## Pick a branch

Identify which question is being answered, using the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:

- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a single shareable HTML file (free-play buttons plus tabbed guided walkthroughs) that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper, and that a non-developer can drive.
- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.

The two branches produce very different artifacts, so getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.

## Rules that apply to both

1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious, but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.
2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner: `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it.
3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE, wipe me" name.
4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.
5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.
6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.

Referenced files: 3

View saved version →

---
name: research
description: Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

Spin up a **background agent** to do the research, so you keep working while it reads.

Its job:

1. Investigate the question against **primary sources** (official docs, source code, specs, first-party APIs), not a secondary write-up of them. Follow every claim back to the source that owns it.
2. Write the findings to a single Markdown file, citing each claim's source.
3. Save it where the repo already keeps such notes; match the existing convention, and if there is none, put it somewhere sensible and say where.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: setup-matt-pocock-skills
description: "Configure this repo for the engineering skills: set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills."
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Setup Matt Pocock's Skills

Scaffold the per-repo configuration that the engineering skills assume:

- **Issue tracker**: where issues live (GitHub by default; local markdown is also supported out of the box)
- **Triage labels**: the strings used for the five canonical triage roles
- **Domain docs**: where `CONTEXT.md` and ADRs live, and the consumer rules for reading them

This is a prompt-driven skill, not a deterministic script. Explore, present what you found, confirm with the user, then write.

## Process

### 1. Explore

Look at the current repo to understand its starting state. Read whatever exists; don't assume:

- `git remote -v` and `.git/config`: is this a GitHub repo? Which one?
- `AGENTS.md` and `CLAUDE.md` at the repo root: does either exist? Is there already an `## Agent skills` section in either?
- `CONTEXT.md` and `CONTEXT-MAP.md` at the repo root
- `docs/adr/` and any `src/*/docs/adr/` directories
- `docs/agents/`: does this skill's prior output already exist?
- `.scratch/`: a sign that a local-markdown issue tracker convention is already in use
- Is the `triage` skill installed? (a `triage` skill folder alongside this one, or `triage` in your available skills.) This decides whether Section B runs at all.
- Monorepo signals: a `pnpm-workspace.yaml`, a `workspaces` field in `package.json`, or a populated `packages/*` with its own `src/`. These are present only in a genuinely large multi-package repo; their absence means single-context, which is almost every repo.

### 2. Present findings and ask

Summarise what's present and what's missing. Then take the sections in order. One section, one answer, then the next.

Lead each section with the recommended answer so the user can accept it in a word. Give a one-line explainer only when the choice genuinely branches; skip the section entirely when exploration already settled it (Section B when `triage` isn't installed, Section C when there's no monorepo).

**Section A: Issue tracker.**

> Explainer: The "issue tracker" is where issues live for this repo. Skills like `to-tickets`, `triage`, and `to-spec` read from and write to it. They need to know whether to call `gh issue create`, write a markdown file under `.scratch/`, or follow some other workflow you describe. Pick the place you actually track work for this repo.

Default posture: these skills were designed for GitHub. If a `git remote` points at GitHub, propose that. If a `git remote` points at GitLab (`gitlab.com` or a self-hosted host), propose GitLab. Otherwise (or if the user prefers), offer:

- **GitHub**: issues live in the repo's GitHub Issues (uses the `gh` CLI)
- **GitLab**: issues live in the repo's GitLab Issues (uses the [`glab`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cli) CLI)
- **Local markdown**: issues live as files under `.scratch/<feature>/` in this repo (good for solo projects or repos without a remote)
- **Other** (Jira, Linear, etc.): ask the user to describe the workflow in one paragraph; the skill will record it as freeform prose

Record the choice in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. The GitHub and GitLab templates carry a "PRs as a request surface" flag, defaulted **off**. Leave it off and don't raise it: a user who wants external PRs in the triage queue can flip the flag in the file later.

**Section B: Triage label vocabulary.** Skip this section entirely if the `triage` skill isn't installed (exploration told you), since an uninstalled skill needs no labels.

If it is installed, ask exactly one question:

> Do you want to keep the default triage labels? (recommended: **yes**)

The defaults are the five canonical roles, each label string equal to its name: `needs-triage`, `needs-info`, `ready-for-agent`, `ready-for-human`, `wontfix`. On **yes**, write them as-is. Only if the user says no, usually because their tracker already uses other names (e.g. `bug:triage` for `needs-triage`), collect the overrides so `triage` applies existing labels instead of creating duplicates.

**Section C: Domain docs.** Default to **single-context** (one `CONTEXT.md` + `docs/adr/` at the repo root). This fits almost every repo; write it without asking.

Offer **multi-context** (a root `CONTEXT-MAP.md` pointing to per-context `CONTEXT.md` files) only when exploration found monorepo signals. Then confirm which layout they want.

### 3. Confirm and edit

Show the user a draft of:

- The `## Agent skills` block to add to whichever of `CLAUDE.md` / `AGENTS.md` is being edited (see step 4 for selection rules)
- The contents of `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`, `docs/agents/domain.md`, and `docs/agents/triage-labels.md` (the last only when `triage` is installed)

Let them edit before writing.

### 4. Write

**Pick the file to edit:**

- If `CLAUDE.md` exists, edit it.
- Else if `AGENTS.md` exists, edit it.
- If neither exists, ask the user which one to create; don't pick for them.

Never create `AGENTS.md` when `CLAUDE.md` already exists (or vice versa); always edit the one that's already there.

If an `## Agent skills` block already exists in the chosen file, update its contents in-place rather than appending a duplicate. Don't overwrite user edits to the surrounding sections.

The block:

```markdown
## Agent skills

### Issue tracker

[one-line summary of where issues are tracked]. See `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.

### Triage labels

[one-line summary of the label vocabulary]. See `docs/agents/triage-labels.md`.

### Domain docs

[one-line summary of layout: "single-context" or "multi-context"]. See `docs/agents/domain.md`.
```

Include the `### Triage labels` sub-block, and write `docs/agents/triage-labels.md`, only when `triage` is installed and Section B ran. When it isn't, both are omitted.

Then write the docs files using the seed templates in this skill folder as a starting point:

- [issue-tracker-github.md](./issue-tracker-github.md): GitHub issue tracker
- [issue-tracker-gitlab.md](./issue-tracker-gitlab.md): GitLab issue tracker
- [issue-tracker-local.md](./issue-tracker-local.md): local-markdown issue tracker
- [triage-labels.md](./triage-labels.md): label mapping (only if `triage` is installed)
- [domain.md](./domain.md): domain doc consumer rules + layout

For "other" issue trackers, write `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` from scratch using the user's description.

### 5. Done

Tell the user the setup is complete and which engineering skills will now read from these files. Mention they can edit `docs/agents/*.md` directly later; re-running this skill is only necessary if they want to switch issue trackers or restart from scratch.

Referenced files: 6

View saved version →

---
name: wayfinder
description: Plan a huge chunk of work (more than one agent session can hold) as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

A loose idea has arrived, too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog: the way from here to the **destination** isn't visible yet. Wayfinding is about finding that way, not charging at the destination. This skill charts the way as a **shared map** on the repo's issue tracker, then works its **decision tickets** (questions whose resolution is a decision, not slices of a build to execute) one at a time until the route is clear.

The destination varies per effort, and naming it is the first act of charting: it shapes every ticket. It might be a spec to hand off and iterate on, a decision to lock before planning starts, or a change made in place like a data-structure migration. The map is domain-agnostic: engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape.

## Plan, don't do

Wayfinder is **planning** by default: each ticket resolves a decision, and the map is done when the way is clear, with nothing left to decide before someone goes and does the thing. The pull to just do the work is usually the signal you've reached the edge of the map and it's time to hand off. An effort can override this in its **Notes**, carrying execution into the map itself, but absent that, produce decisions, not deliverables.

## Refer by name

Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a **name**: its title. In everything the human reads (narration, the map's Decisions-so-far), refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of `#42, #43, #44` is illegible; names read at a glance. The id and URL don't vanish; a name wraps its link, but they ride _inside_ the name, never stand in for it.

## The Map

The map is a single issue on this repo's issue tracker, labelled `wayfinder:map`, the canonical artifact. Its tickets are child issues of the map.

The map is an **index**, not a store. It lists the decisions made and points at the tickets that hold their detail; a decision lives in exactly one place, its ticket, so the map never restates it, only gists it and links.

**Where the map, its child tickets, blocking, and frontier queries physically live is tracker-specific.** The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. Consult the tracker doc's "Wayfinding operations" section for how _this_ repo expresses them. If no tracker has been provided, default to the local-markdown tracker.

### The map body

The whole map at low resolution, loaded once per session. Open tickets are **not** listed: they are open child issues, found by query.

```markdown
## Destination

<what reaching the end of this map looks like: the spec, decision, or change this effort is finding its way to. One or two lines; every session orients to it before choosing a ticket.>

## Notes

<domain; skills every session should consult; standing preferences for this effort>

## Decisions so far

<!-- the index: one line per closed ticket, enough to judge relevance, then zoom the link for the detail the ticket holds -->

- [<closed ticket title>](link): <one-line gist of the answer>

## Not yet specified

<!-- see "Fog of war": in-scope fog you can't ticket yet; graduates as the frontier advances -->

## Out of scope

<!-- see "Out of scope": work ruled beyond the destination; closed, never graduates -->
```

### Tickets

Each ticket is a **child issue** of the map; the tracker's issue id is its identity. Its body is the question, sized to one 100K token agent session:

```markdown
## Question

<the decision or investigation this ticket resolves>
```

Each ticket carries a `wayfinder:<type>` label, one of `research`, `prototype`, `grilling`, `task` (see [Ticket Types](#ticket-types)).

A session **claims** a ticket by assigning it to the dev driving the map, **first**, before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it. That assignee _is_ the claim: an open, unassigned ticket is unclaimed.

Blocking uses the tracker's **native** dependency relationship: essential because it renders the frontier _visually_ in the tracker's own UI, so the human sees what's takeable without opening the map. Only a tracker that lacks native blocking falls back to a body convention. A ticket is **unblocked** when every ticket blocking it is closed; the **frontier** is the open, unblocked, unclaimed children, the edge of the known.

The answer isn't part of the body; it's recorded on resolution (see [Work through the map](#work-through-the-map)). Assets created while resolving a ticket are linked from the issue, not pasted in.

## Ticket Types

Every ticket is either **HITL** (human in the loop, worked _with_ a human who speaks for themselves) or **AFK**, driven by the agent alone. A HITL ticket only resolves through that live exchange; the agent never stands in for the human's side of it (a grilling agent that answers its own questions has broken this).

- **Research** (AFK): Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases to surface a fact a decision waits on. Resolved by a subagent that calls the Skill tool with "research". Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
- **Prototype** (HITL): Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to (an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code) by calling the Skill tool with "prototype". Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
- **Grilling** (HITL): Conversation. The default case. Always call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling".
- **Task** (HITL or AFK): Manual work that must happen before a _decision_ can be made: nothing to decide, prototype, or research, but the discussion is blocked until it's done. Signing up for a service so its API can be judged, provisioning access, moving data so its shape can be seen. This is the one type that _does_ rather than decides, and it earns its place by unblocking a decision, not by delivering the destination. The agent drives it alone where it can (AFK); otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist (HITL). Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.

## Fog of war

The map is _deliberately_ incomplete: don't chart what you can't yet see. Beyond the live tickets lies the **fog of war**: the dim view of decisions and investigations you can tell are coming but can't yet pin down, because they hang on questions still open. Resolving a ticket clears the fog ahead of it, graduating whatever's now specifiable into fresh tickets, one at a time, until the way to the destination is clear and no tickets remain.

The map's **Not yet specified** section is where that dim view is written down: the suspected question, the area to revisit later. It's the undiscovered frontier _toward_ the destination: everything here is in scope, just not sharp enough to ticket. Write as loosely or as fully as the view allows; it doubles as a signpost for collaborators reading where the effort is headed.

**Fog or ticket?** The test is whether you can state the question precisely now, _not_ whether you can answer it now.

- **Ticket when** the question is already sharp, even if it's blocked and you can't act on it yet.
- **Not yet specified when** you can't yet phrase it that sharply. Don't pre-slice the fog into ticket-sized pieces: it's coarser than a ticket, and one patch may graduate into several tickets, or none, once the frontier reaches it.

**Not yet specified** excludes what's already decided (Decisions so far), what's already a live ticket, and what's out of scope (the next section).

## Out of scope

Fog only ever gathers _toward_ the destination. The destination fixes the scope, so work beyond it is **out of scope**: it isn't fog, and it doesn't belong in **Not yet specified**. It gets its own **Out of scope** section on the map: work you've consciously ruled out of _this_ effort. Scope, not sharpness, lands it here.

Out-of-scope work never graduates (the frontier stops at the destination), so it returns only if the destination is redrawn, and then as a fresh effort, not a resumption.

Ruling something out of scope is a scoping act, not a step on the route. When a ticket that already exists turns out to sit past the destination (mis-scoped in while charting, or exposed by a resolution), **close it** (a closed ticket is unambiguously off the frontier) and leave one line in the **Out of scope** section: the gist plus why it's out of scope, linking the closed ticket. It stays out of **Decisions so far**, which records the route actually walked; a scope boundary isn't a step on it.

## Invocation

Two modes. Either way, **never resolve more than one ticket per session**, with the exception of research tickets.

### Chart the map

User invokes with a loose idea.

1. **Name the destination.** Call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling", to pin down what this map is finding its way to: the spec, decision, or change. The destination fixes the scope, so it's settled first.
2. **Map the frontier.** Grill again, **breadth-first** this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now. **If this surfaces no fog** (the way to the destination is already clear, the whole journey small enough for one session), you don't need a map. Stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed.
3. **Create the map** (label `wayfinder:map`): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into **Not yet specified**.
4. **Create the tickets you can specify now** as child issues of the map, then wire blocking edges in a **second pass** (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the fog: the **Not yet specified** section.
5. **Fire the research subagents.** For each `research` ticket you just created, spin up a subagent that calls the Skill tool with "research" to resolve it in parallel, capturing its findings on a throwaway `research/<name>` branch with a context pointer from the ticket.
6. Stop: charting is one session's work; it hand-resolves nothing.

### Work through the map

User invokes with a map (URL or number). A ticket is **optional**: without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.

1. Load the **map**: the low-res view, not every ticket body.
2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise take the first frontier ticket in order. **Claim it**: assign it to yourself before any work.
3. Resolve it. **Zoom as needed**: fetch the full body of any related or closed ticket on demand; call the Skill tool for whichever skills the `## Notes` block names. If in doubt, call the Skill tool twice, for "grilling" and "domain-modeling".
4. Record the resolution: post the answer as a **resolution comment**, **close** the issue, and **append a context pointer** to the map's Decisions-so-far.
5. Add newly-surfaced tickets (create-then-wire); graduate any fog the answer has made specifiable, clearing each graduated patch from **Not yet specified** so it lives only as its new ticket. If the answer reveals that a ticket (this one or another) sits beyond the destination, **rule it out of scope** rather than resolving it on the route. If the decision invalidates other parts of the map, update or delete those tickets.

The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently.

Referenced files: 1