home / skills / makfly / superpowers-symfony / twig-components

twig-components skill

This skill guides production-grade Symfony twig components architecture and execution workflows, with progressive checkpoints and auditable decisions to

npx playbooks add skill makfly/superpowers-symfony --skill twig-components

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (2)

SKILL.md

1.1 KB

---

name: symfony:twig-components
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Glob
  - Grep
description: Apply production-grade Symfony architecture and execution workflows with controlled scope and clear checkpoints. Use for twig components tasks.
---

# Twig Components (Symfony)

## Use when
- Refining architecture/workflows/context handling in Symfony projects.
- Planning and executing medium/complex changes safely.

## Default workflow
1. Establish current boundaries, constraints, and coupling points.
2. Propose smallest coherent architectural adjustment.
2. Execute in checkpoints with validation at each stage.
2. Summarize tradeoffs and follow-up backlog.

## Guardrails
- Use existing project patterns by default.
- Avoid broad refactors without explicit need.
- Keep decision log clear and auditable.

## Progressive disclosure
- Use this file for execution posture and risk controls.
- Open references when deep implementation details are needed.

## Output contract
- Architecture/workflow changes.
- Checkpoint validation outcomes.
- Residual risks and next steps.

## References
- `reference.md`
- `docs/complexity-tiers.md`

Overview

This skill applies production-grade Symfony architecture and execution workflows to tasks involving Twig components. It focuses on controlled scope, clear checkpoints, and minimizing risk while improving component structure and reuse. The goal is safe, incremental changes with auditable decisions and traceable validation.

How this skill works

I start by mapping current boundaries, constraints, and coupling points affecting Twig components and related services. I propose the smallest coherent architectural adjustment that addresses the problem, then execute changes in discrete checkpoints with validation criteria for each stage. After completion I summarize tradeoffs, residual risks, and a prioritized follow-up backlog for further work.

When to use it

When refining component boundaries, data flow, or context handling in Symfony Twig components.
When planning medium to complex UI or template changes that touch multiple layers (controllers, services, templates).
When you need an auditable execution plan with risk controls and rollback paths.
When avoiding broad refactors but still wanting incremental architecture improvements.
When validating assumptions about coupling or shared state in templates and view models.

Best practices

Default to existing project patterns and conventions unless a clear benefit justifies deviation.
Limit each change to a single, testable concern and validate at a checkpoint before proceeding.
Keep a concise decision log with rationale, alternatives considered, and owner for each decision.
Prefer composition and small, focused Twig components over large, multi-responsibility templates.
Define clear validation criteria (unit/integration tests, visual checks, performance metrics) for every checkpoint.

Example use cases

Introduce a new reusable Twig component for a card UI while keeping legacy templates functional during migration.
Refactor context handling so components receive explicit view models instead of relying on global template variables.
Split a large template into smaller components behind feature flags and validate each piece before full rollout.
Add server-side rendering optimizations by adjusting how fragments and caches are composed in Twig.
Document and implement an incremental change that reduces coupling between controller logic and presentation.

FAQ

How do you ensure changes are low-risk?

By proposing minimal coherent adjustments, executing in checkpoints, and validating each stage with tests and visual or performance checks.

What counts as a checkpoint?

A checkpoint is a discrete deployable step with clear validation criteria, rollback instructions, and an owner.

When should I avoid this approach?

Avoid it for trivial one-line fixes or when a full, greenfield redesign is explicitly required and planned.