printing-press-reprint

/printing-press-reprint

Regenerate an existing printed CLI under the current machine. The user gives a CLI name and (optionally) reasons for the reprint. This skill ensures the prior CLI is locally present, recommends whether to reuse or redo prior research, and hands off to /printing-press with the context the novel-features subagent needs to reconcile prior features against the current machine — keep, reframe, or drop with reasons, never silent.

/printing-press-reprint notion
/printing-press-reprint cal.com  the new MCP intent surface landed and the prior CLI ships

When to run

• A significant Printing Press upgrade (new MCP surface, new auth modes, new transport, scoring rubric changes) would lift this CLI more than manual polish.
• The published CLI ships with a known systemic gap a reprint would fix.
• The user wants prior novel features re-evaluated against the current machine and current personas, not carried forward verbatim.

For one-off code-quality fixes, prefer /printing-press-polish — it doesn't redo research or rebuild the manuscript.

Setup

Phase A — Resolve and reconcile presence

Resolve the user's argument the same way /printing-press-import does: fetch the public library registry.json once, then exact → normalized → fuzzy match. The argument can be an API slug (notion), a brand name (cal.com), an old <api>-pp-cli form, or close enough.

Capture from the matched registry entry: API_SLUG (from .name) and LIB_PATH (from .path, e.g., library/productivity/cal-com). Phase B uses $LIB_PATH for the public patches fetch. For the "present | absent" never-published row, $LIB_PATH stays empty — Phase B's fetch short-circuits on that.

Then check what exists locally and reconcile against the public library by reading both provenance manifests' run_id and generated_at:

When invoking /printing-press-import, let it own backup, overwrite, build-verify, and module-path-rewrite. Wait for it to return clean before continuing.

Phase B — Verify reconcilable prior context

Locate the two artifacts the writing pipeline should be aware of: research (drives novel-features Pass 2(d)) and patches (post-publish hand-fixes recorded by /printing-press-amend, e.g. live-discovered API quirks the spec didn't reveal).

Research absent

If neither research path exists, the published CLI predates research.json provenance. The subagent will treat the run as a first print and Pass 2(d) reprint reconciliation will not fire — there is nothing for it to read. Surface this and ask:

Published <api> was built before research.json provenance landed. Without it, the novel-features subagent will treat this as a first print — there is nothing to reconcile against. Continue as a degraded reprint (essentially a fresh print with a kept binary name)?

If the user declines, exit. If they continue, record the absence so the hand-off prompt notes that this is a degraded reprint.

Patches discovery

Refresh the local patches index from public when reachable, then read locally so downstream references are durable. Amends may have landed against the public copy without triggering a regen, so the local copy can lag even when run_id matches; this step closes that gap.

The index ships in one of two shapes: the per-patch directory .printing-press-patches/ (current) or the legacy single-array .printing-press-patches.json (older CLIs not yet normalized). Always check both shapes when reachable. Prefer the directory when it contains patch files, but never let an absent legacy single-file index set PATCH_COUNT=0 until the directory fallback has been read.

If $PATCH_COUNT == 0 or no index is present (older CLI predating the patches contract), skip the rest of this subsection — no patches block in the hand-off.

If $PATCH_COUNT > 0, surface a one-liner to the user before continuing:

Public <api> has $PATCH_COUNT recorded patch(es) against the prior printed CLI. Carry them into the brief as a watch-list. Regen and publish-validate now read the records and fail closed if a recorded file or declared call site / pp:patch marker is gone — do not treat the index as a claim that the customization still shipped.

Hold $PATCHES_SOURCE and $PATCH_COUNT for Phase D.

Phase C — Recency recommendation

Pull researched_at from the most-recent prior research.json and printing_press_version + generated_at from .printing-press.json:

Compute the calendar age of the research with python3 so it stays portable across macOS/Linux and tolerates the microsecond precision that generated_at carries (BSD date -f rejects fractional seconds; python3 is on every supported platform):

Surface both signals to the user — research age and prior machine version. Age thresholds are rules of thumb, not gates:

• under 30 days → reuse looks safe
• 30–120 days → reuse plausible; the user should mention any known API churn in their reprint reason so the subagent's Pass 2 picks it up
• over 120 days → redo recommended

Don't predict API churn from age alone — describe the signals and let the user override. The Phase 0 binary-version-bump revalidation in /printing-press handles the machine-delta side independently; don't duplicate it here.

Ask via AskUserQuestion:

1. Reuse prior research — keep the prior brief; the subagent re-scores prior novel features against current personas
2. Redo research — re-run Phase 1 of /printing-press from scratch; the subagent still ingests prior novel features as Pass 2(d) input
3. Show me first — display the prior brief's headline + novel-features list, then re-ask between options 1 and 2

Phase D — Hand off to /printing-press

Before invoking /printing-press, use the prior CLI's scorecard and manifest to decide whether the reprint should offer spec enrichment that the first print could not have used. Reprints have better evidence than fresh prints: they know which structural dimensions were weak, which Printing Press version produced the prior CLI, and what the user named as the reason for regenerating.

Find the most recent scorecard JSON from the prior manuscript run. If no scorecard artifact exists, run a fresh structural scorecard against the local library copy:

If SCORECARD_JSON is empty, continue without enrichment prompting and say the reprint is proceeding without prior score evidence. Do not invent a prompt from the reprint reason alone.

When SCORECARD_JSON is available, inspect only dimensions that map to a pre-generation spec edit and skip dimensions that already score 10/10:

• mcp_remote_transport, mcp_token_efficiency, mcp_tool_design, and mcp_surface_strategy below 10 can be lifted by the /printing-press Phase 2 section Pre-Generation MCP Enrichment. Examples:
  • remote transport is below 10: offer mcp.transport: [stdio, http] or the OpenAPI x-mcp.transport equivalent before regeneration.
  • token efficiency, tool design, or surface strategy is below 10: offer the /printing-press Phase 2 MCP surface decision, including intents for clear multi-step workflows or the Cloudflare pattern for large surfaces.
• auth_protocol below 10, or prior manifest evidence that the CLI used a slug-derived env var where the ecosystem has a canonical env var, can be lifted by Pre-Generation Auth Enrichment. Offer to carry canonical auth.env_vars or OpenAPI x-auth-env-vars guidance into the spec.
• data_pipeline_integrity below 10 is only an enrichment opportunity when the prior CLI or research shows sync-eligible resources. In that case, point the handoff at the relevant /printing-press Phase 2 sync/cache enrichment decision rather than treating the score alone as proof that a local store should exist.

Use AskUserQuestion for each concrete opportunity before the handoff. Phrase the question around the scorecard evidence and the named canonical section, not around a freeform rewrite. Example:

Prior scorecard shows mcp_remote_transport: 5/10. Offer MCP transport enrichment before regenerating, using /printing-press Phase 2 Pre-Generation MCP Enrichment as the source of truth?

Options:

1. Apply enrichment to the handoff - include the selected spec edit in the /printing-press prompt so Phase 2 can update the spec before generation.
2. Skip for this reprint - leave the spec unchanged for this dimension.
3. Show score evidence first - print the relevant scorecard lines and then re-ask between options 1 and 2.

Do not auto-apply enrichment. If the prior scorecard already has mcp_remote_transport: 10/10, do not ask the redundant MCP transport question. If the user accepts any opportunity, add a ## Reprint Spec Enrichment section to the /printing-press handoff. Keep it brief: name the weak dimension, the accepted enrichment, and the canonical /printing-press Phase 2 section to execute. Do not duplicate the canonical enrichment text here.

Invoke /printing-press <api> and bundle these into the prompt:

1. A header line stating the user already chose to regenerate, so /printing-press Phase 0's library-check should select "Generate a fresh CLI" and not re-prompt fresh-vs-improve.

2. Research mode from Phase C (reuse or redo). /printing-press Phase 0's existing reuse logic consumes this.

3. The user's freeform reprint reason, verbatim, in a User context block. This propagates into the brief as ## User Vision and becomes Pass 2(e) input to the novel-features subagent — the right hook for "I want better MCP support" → bias the brainstorm accordingly.

4. Reprint spec enrichment — only when the scorecard-driven prompt above found an accepted opportunity. Include under a ## Reprint Spec Enrichment heading.

5. Prior patches — only when Phase B found $PATCH_COUNT > 0. Include under a ## Prior Patches heading.

   Lead the section with this framing sentence, verbatim:

   The following were hand-fixed against the prior printed CLI. They are informational — the machine may have absorbed some of these upstream since the patch was applied. Stay aware so the fresh code doesn't silently regress the underlying API truth or architectural pattern, but do not treat as a re-apply checklist.

   Then summarize the patches from $PATCHES_SOURCE. Lead each entry with the substance the patch encodes (the API truth, the architectural pattern, the cross-file convention) drawn from each patch's reason and validated_outcome — not just summary. Patch metadata (id, files) is fine as parenthetical context but never the headline.

   Scale the section to patch count:

   • 1–3 patches: one short paragraph per patch — substance first, then how it manifested. Model the shape on:

     Linear's personal API keys go in Authorization: lin_api_… raw, with no Bearer prefix; OAuth tokens use Authorization: Bearer <token>. The prior CLI shipped with auth set-token only (Bearer-defaulted) and was patched post-publish to add auth set-api-key plus the raw-header path in config.go (linear-auth-api-key-vs-oauth-token).

   • 4–9 patches: one tight sentence per patch, same substance-first shape.
   • 10+ patches: thematic summary by category (auth, pagination, query encoding, MCP additions, helpers, classifiers, error envelopes). Two or three sentences per theme citing 2–3 patch ids as evidence. Do not enumerate all entries inline.

   Close the section with a pointer so a downstream agent can drill into any specific patch when working in the relevant area:

   Full patch detail: the per-patch files under $PATCHES_SOURCE (each <id>.json is one self-contained patch; the legacy single-array .printing-press-patches.json carries the same fields under patches[]).

Do not pass a separate "this is a reprint" marker. The novel-features subagent runs unconditionally on every print and discovers prior research via its own discovery snippet. The paths import populated in Phase A are exactly the paths it checks; Pass 2(d) fires whenever prior research.json exists.

The library-preservation contract is owned by /printing-press Phase 5.6 ("Promote to Library"), not by this skill. When the existing library has novel_features > 0 in its manifest (or hand-authored files under internal/cli/, internal/syncer/, or internal/store/), Phase 5.6 first dry-runs "$PRINTING_PRESS_BIN" regen-merge "$LIB_TARGET" --fresh "$CLI_WORK_DIR" --json to decide whether the fresh tree rebuilt the prior novels. If the fresh tree contains all prior novel work, Phase 5.6 uses the swap path and treats generated-file version drift as expected overwrite. Otherwise it routes promotion through regen-merge --apply so still-unique hand-authored novels survive the reprint and genuine NOVEL-COLLISION / missing-referent cases halt for review. This honors the prefer-regen-merge guidance under the Hand-edits must be regen-mergeable. section of /printing-press Phase 3. If a future edit to that phase changes the routing rule, update this paragraph in the same PR -- the reprint skill is the dominant entry point that fires it.

Before the hand-off, compare regenerated manifest files against the tracked published tree. If $LIB_TARGET/manifest.json or $LIB_TARGET/tools-manifest.json exists, diff each file against the freshly generated counterpart under $CLI_WORK_DIR and surface non-empty diffs in the handoff prompt. Treat a diff as a reconciliation checkpoint, not as automatic overwrite approval: the operator must decide whether to preserve the tracked hand-edit, fold it into the spec/research inputs, or intentionally accept the regenerated value. Do not continue silently when tracked manifest fields, tool metadata, or descriptions would be dropped.

Attribution also stays owned by /printing-press: the hand-off runs generation for the same API slug, and the generate/promote path must preserve the existing library manifest's permanent creator while adding the reprinter to contributors[] when they differ. Do not repair this by hand-editing creator, contributors[], README bylines, SKILL author:, or NOTICE; rerun with a current Printing Press binary so the manifest-first guard rewrites the working tree and promoted tree consistently.

After hand-off

The printing-press flow drives the rest. Don't summarize its work — let the user see the live phases.

If /printing-press halts with the subagent's pre-flight HALT (brief lacks concrete Users / Top Workflows content), the reused prior brief predates the subagent's required schema. Recommend re-running with Redo research selected at Phase C.