Agent Skills: Business Analyst Assistant

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Prefer the plan-hard skill for planning guidance in this Codex mirror.
• Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
• User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
• Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
• Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
• Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required spawn_agent subagent(s) for that task.
• Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
• For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
• If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex does not receive Claude hook-based doc injection. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

Always read:

• docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
• docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)
• docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

Situation-based docs:

• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec/test-case planning or TC mapping: feature-docs-reference.md
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

Quick Summary

Goal: Refine requirements into actionable user stories with BDD acceptance criteria and business rule traceability.

Workflow:

1. Extract Business Rules — Locate feature docs, extract BR-{MOD}-XXX rules, reference in stories
2. Investigate Entities — Load feature docs, extract domain model and query patterns
3. Write User Stories — Use "As a / I want / So that" format, validate with INVEST criteria
4. Define Acceptance Criteria — BDD format (GIVEN/WHEN/THEN), gap analysis for missing scenarios

Key Rules:

• Always reference existing business rules from docs/business-features/ before creating new ones
• User stories must pass INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable)
• Include entity context and related domain model in every story
• MUST ATTENTION include story_points and complexity in all PBI/story outputs

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)

Business Analyst Assistant

Help Business Analysts refine requirements into actionable user stories with clear acceptance criteria using BDD format.

Business Rules Extraction (Project Domain)

When refining domain-related PBIs, automatically extract and reference existing business rules.

Step 1: Locate Related Feature Docs

Dynamic Discovery:

1. Run: Glob("docs/business-features/{module}/detailed-features/*.md") for feature docs
2. Or: Glob("docs/business-features/{module}/detailed-features/**/*.md") for nested features

From PBI frontmatter or module detection:

1. Check module field
2. Identify related feature from related_features list
3. Read discovered feature documentation

Step 2: Extract Existing Business Rules

From feature doc "Business Rules" section:

• Format: BR-{MOD}-XXX: Description
• Example: BR-GRO-001: Goals must have measurable success criteria
• Note conflicting rules if found

Step 3: Add to User Story

Include section:

## Related Business Rules

**From Feature Docs:**

- BR-GRO-001: Goals must have measurable success criteria
- BR-GRO-005: Only goal owner and manager can edit progress

**New Business Rules (if applicable):**

- BR-GRO-042: {New rule description}

**Conflicts/Clarifications:**

- {Note any conflicts with existing rules}

Token Budget

Target 8-12K tokens total (validated decision: prefer completeness):

• Module README: 2K tokens
• Full feature doc sections: 3-5K tokens per feature
• Multi-module support: Load all detected modules (may increase total)

Entity Domain Investigation

When refining domain-related PBIs, investigate related entities using feature docs.

Step 1: Load Feature Doc

Glob("docs/business-features/{module}/detailed-features/*.md")

Select file matching feature from PBI context.

Step 2: Extract Domain Model

From ## Domain Model section (Section 5):

• Entity inheritance: Entity : BaseClass
• Property types: Property: Type
• Navigation: NavigationProperty: List<Related>
• Computed: Property: Type (computed: logic)

Step 3: Correlate with Codebase

From ## File Locations section:

1. Read entity source file
2. Verify properties match documentation
3. Note any undocumented properties (flag for doc update)

Step 4: Identify Query Patterns

From ## Key Expressions section:

• Static expressions for common queries
• Validation rules with BR-* references

Step 5: Add to User Story

Include entity context:

## Entity Context

**Primary:** {Entity} - {description}
**Related:** {Entity1}, {Entity2}
**Key Queries:** {ExpressionName}
**Source:** {path}

This ensures implementation uses correct entities and patterns.

Core Capabilities

1. Requirements Refinement

• Transform vague requests into specific requirements
• Identify missing information and ambiguities
• Document assumptions and constraints

2. User Story Writing

Format

As a {user role/persona}
I want {goal/desire}
So that {benefit/value}

INVEST Criteria

• Independent: No dependencies on other stories
• Negotiable: Not a contract, can be refined
• Valuable: Delivers user value
• Estimable: Can be sized
• Small: Fits in one sprint
• Testable: Has clear acceptance criteria

3. Acceptance Criteria (BDD Format)

Scenario: {Descriptive title}
  Given {precondition/context}
    And {additional context}
  When {action/trigger}
    And {additional action}
  Then {expected outcome}
    And {additional verification}

For Project Domain:

1. Reference existing test case patterns from feature docs
2. Use TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format (e.g., TC-GM-001)
3. Include Evidence field: file:line format
4. Example from GoalManagement feature:

   TC-GRO-GOAL-001: Create goal with valid data
   GIVEN employee has permission to create goals
   WHEN employee submits goal form with all required fields
   THEN goal is created and appears in goal list
   Evidence: goal.service.ts:87, goal.component.ts:142
   

4. Business Rules Documentation

Rule Format

BR-{MOD}-{NNN}: {Rule name}
IF {condition}
THEN {action/result}
ELSE {alternative}
Evidence: {file}:{line}

5. Gap Analysis

• Current state vs desired state mapping
• Identify process improvements
• Document integration requirements

Context Validation (Project Domain)

Before finalizing user story:

Cross-Reference Check

• [ ] Business rules don't conflict with existing BR-{MOD}-XXX rules
• [ ] Test case format matches existing TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} patterns
• [ ] Entity names match those in feature docs
• [ ] Evidence format follows file:line convention

Documentation Links

Add to user story:

## Reference Documentation

- Feature Doc: `docs/business-features/{module}/detailed-features/{feature}.md`
- Related Entities: `docs/business-features/{module}/detailed-features/*.md`
- Existing Test Cases: See feature doc Section 15 (Test Specifications)

If conflicts found, note in "Unresolved Questions" section.

Workflow Integration

Refining Ideas to PBIs

When user runs $refine {idea-file}:

1. Read idea artifact
2. Check for module field in frontmatter
3. Load business feature context if domain-related
4. Extract requirements
5. Extract existing BRs from feature docs
6. Identify acceptance criteria using TC patterns
7. Create PBI with GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
8. Save to team-artifacts/pbis/

Creating User Stories

When user runs $story {pbi-file}:

1. Read PBI
2. Break into vertical slices
3. Write user stories with AC
4. Ensure INVEST criteria met
5. Include related BRs
6. Save to team-artifacts/pbis/stories/

Templates

User Story Template

---
id: US-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}
parent_pbi: '{PBI-ID}'
persona: '{Persona name}'
priority: P1 | P2 | P3
story_points: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21
complexity: Low | Medium | High | Very High
status: draft | ready | in_progress | done
module: '' # Project module (if applicable)
---

# User Story

**As a** {user role}
**I want** {goal}
**So that** {benefit}

## Acceptance Criteria

### Scenario 1: {Happy path title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}
```

### Scenario 2: {Edge case title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}
```

### Scenario 3: {Error case title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {invalid action}
Then {error handling}
```

## Related Business Rules

<!-- Auto-extracted from feature docs -->

- BR-{MOD}-XXX: {Description}

## Out of Scope

- {Explicitly excluded item}

## Notes

- {Implementation guidance}

Elicitation Techniques

5 Whys

1. Why? → {answer}
2. Why? → {answer}
3. Why? → {answer}
4. Why? → {answer}
5. Why? → {root cause}

SMART Criteria for Requirements

• Specific: Clear and unambiguous
• Measurable: Can verify completion
• Achievable: Technically feasible
• Relevant: Aligned with business goals
• Time-bound: Has a deadline or sprint

Output Conventions

File Naming

{YYMMDD}-ba-story-{slug}.md
{YYMMDD}-ba-requirements-{slug}.md

Requirement IDs

• Functional: FR-{MOD}-{NNN} (e.g., FR-GROW-001)
• Non-Functional: NFR-{MOD}-{NNN}
• Business Rule: BR-{MOD}-{NNN}

AC IDs

• AC-{NNN} per story/PBI

Test Case IDs (Project)

• TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} (e.g., TC-GM-001)

Quality Checklist

Before completing BA artifacts:

• [ ] User story follows "As a... I want... So that..." format
• [ ] At least 3 scenarios: happy path, edge case, error case
• [ ] All scenarios use GIVEN/WHEN/THEN
• [ ] Out of scope explicitly listed
• [ ] Story meets INVEST criteria
• [ ] No solution-speak in requirements (only outcomes)
• [ ] Existing BRs referenced (if domain-related)
• [ ] TC format matches feature docs (if domain-related)
• [ ] Entity names use domain vocabulary

Post-Refinement Validation (MANDATORY)

Every refinement must end with a validation interview.

After completing user story or PBI refinement, conduct validation to:

1. Surface hidden assumptions
2. Confirm critical decisions
3. Identify potential concerns
4. Brainstorm with user on alternatives

Validation Interview Process

Use a direct user question tool with 3-5 questions:

| Category | Example Questions | | --------------- | --------------------------------------- | | Assumptions | "We assume X. Is this correct?" | | Scope | "Should Y be explicitly excluded?" | | Dependencies | "Does this depend on Z being ready?" | | Edge Cases | "What happens when data is empty/null?" | | Business Impact | "Will this affect existing reports?" |

Document Validation Results

Add to user story/PBI:

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Concerns Raised

- {concern}: {resolution}

### Action Items

- [ ] {follow-up if any}

When to Flag for Stakeholder Review

• Decision impacts other teams
• Scope change requested
• Technical risk identified
• Business rule conflict detected

This step is NOT optional - always validate before marking refinement complete.

[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal. Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing. Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain. Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path. When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks. Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis. Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly. Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via ask the user directly · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see $sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (api-design, debug, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see $sequential-thinking skill.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

Closing Reminders

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

1. DETECT: Match prompt against workflow catalog
2. ANALYZE: Find best-match workflow AND evaluate if a custom step combination would fit better
3. ASK (REQUIRED FORMAT): Use a direct user question with this structure:
   • Question: "Which workflow do you want to activate?"
   • Option 1: "Activate [BestMatch Workflow] (Recommended)"
   • Option 2: "Activate custom workflow: [step1 → step2 → ...]" (include one-line rationale)
4. ACTIVATE (if confirmed): Call $workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow steps
6. EXECUTE: Follow each step in sequence [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.

Learned Lessons

Lessons Learned

[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.

Quick Summary

Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns — debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.

Top Rules (apply always):

• MUST ATTENTION verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis
• MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom sites with caller-specific defensive code
• MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW — NEVER ExecuteUowTask
• MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE not CONTENT — adding member forces rename = abstraction broken
• MUST ATTENTION persist sub-agent findings incrementally after each file — NEVER batch at end
• MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: verify Python alias (where python/where py) — NEVER assume python/python3 resolves

Debugging & Root Cause Reasoning

• [2026-04-11] Holistic-first: verify environment before code. Failure → list ALL preconditions (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI regs, credentials, permissions, data prerequisites) → verify each via evidence (grep/cat/query) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis. Worst rabbit holes: diving nearest layer while bug sits elsewhere — e.g., hours debugging "sync timeout", real cause: test appsettings pointing wrong DB. ALWAYS cheapest check first.
• [2026-04-01] Ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace: bug caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling)? Fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site masking real issue.
• [2026-04-01] Trace data lifecycle, not error site. Follow data: creation → transformation → consumption. Bug usually where data created wrong, not consumed.
• [2026-04-01] Code caller-agnostic. Functions/handlers/consumers don't know who invokes them. Comments/guards/messages describe business intent — NEVER reference specific callers (tests, seeders, scripts).

Architecture Invariants

• [2026-05-09] User name materialization MUST ATTENTION go through User.UpdateName(firstName, middleName, lastName). Domain method (src/Services/bravoTALENTS/Employee.Domain/AggregatesModel/User.cs:202-209) recomputes FullName as single source of truth. Three sites still manually patch user.FullName = user.GetFullName() after assigning name fields — src/Services/bravoTALENTS/Employee.Application/Factories/UserFactory.cs:50, src/Services/bravoSURVEYS/LearningPlatform.Application/ApplyPlatform/MessageBus/Consumers/AccountUserDeletedEventBusConsumer.cs:102, src/Services/bravoINSIGHTS/Analyze/Analyze.Application/MessageBus/Consumers/AccountUserDeletedEventBusConsumer.cs:66. Next time touching any: replace manual patch with user.UpdateName(...) to maintain invariant.
• [2026-03-31] ParallelAsync + repo/UoW MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) — parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).
• [2026-03-31] Bus message naming MUST ATTENTION include service name prefix — core services NEVER consume feature events. Prefix declares schema ownership (AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST ATTENTION use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage — NEVER define own event for core to consume.

Naming & Abstraction

• [2026-04-12] Name PURPOSE not CONTENT — "OrXxx" anti-pattern. HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what guards. Add role → rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad → rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) — expresses HAPPENS, not membership.

Environment & Tooling

• [2026-04-20] Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — verify alias first. Python may not be bash PATH under those names. Check: where python / where py. ALWAYS prefer py (Windows Python Launcher) one-liners, node if JS alternative exists.

Test-specific lessons → docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md Lessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns → docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md Anti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders → System Lessons .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION holistic-first: verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, endpoints, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis — cheapest check first
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site; trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling), fix root owner
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION parallel async + repo/UoW → ALWAYS ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption)
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bus message prefix = schema ownership; feature services NEVER define events for core services — use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE — adding/removing member forces rename = broken abstraction
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sub-agents MUST write findings after each file/section — NEVER batch all findings into one final write
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — run where python/where py first, use py launcher or node
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every claim needs file:line evidence — confidence >80% to act, NEVER speculate

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.