Groovy-Developer SKILL - Ternary operator

[gsartori]

Description

Adds guidance to the groovy-developer skill for formatting Groovy ternary expressions.

The new section recommends:

• Using ternary operators only for simple conditions.
• Splitting longer expressions across multiple lines.
• Aligning the ? and : branches for readability.

This is a documentation-only change to the agent skill and does not affect Grails runtime behavior or public APIs. No automated tests are required.

No related issue exists; the change provides missing formatting guidance for generated Groovy code.

Contributor Checklist

Issue and Scope

• Background is provided above because no approved issue exists.
• This PR addresses the complete intended scope.
• This PR contains a single, focused change.
• This documentation-only change targets the appropriate patch release branch.

Code Quality

• Automated tests are not applicable because no executable code was changed.
• I have verified that all existing tests pass by running ./gradlew build --rerun-tasks.
• I have run ./gradlew codeStyle.
• This PR does not include mass reformatting or unrelated refactoring.
• Generative AI tooling, if used, was reviewed for consistency with project standards.

Licensing and Attribution

• The change is provided under the Apache License 2.0; no new source files were added.
• I have the necessary rights to submit this contribution.
• If generative AI tooling was used, its use has been attributed according to ASF policy.

Documentation

• The relevant groovy-developer skill documentation was updated.
• A “What’s New” update is not applicable because this is not a Grails feature.
• Upgrade notes are not required because there are no breaking changes or user actions.
• The PR description explains what changed and why.

[jdaugherty]

Can you please rebase this PR on top of 8.0.x so there aren't extra commits in it?

[gsartori]

@jdaugherty I did a rebase on top of 8.0.x, not sure if that resolved the extra commits you are referring

[jdaugherty]

@gsartori there's something wrong with your history - it's including many more changes. Are you ok if I rebase your changes so it doesn't include the extra?

[gsartori]

@jdaugherty yes please, I haven't spent enough time on the github forking thing and I am very bad with it, I am sorry for that, but that's it at the moment :/

[jdaugherty]

@gsartori can you please confirm this looks right now? The diff shows only a single change to me.

[gsartori]

@jdaugherty it looks okay to me

[jdaugherty]

@gsartori Thank you! I've merged this.