Agent Skills: Product Owner 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: Help Product Owners capture ideas, manage backlogs, and prioritize using RICE, MoSCoW, and Value/Effort frameworks.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Plan ToDo Task to READ the following project-specific reference doc:

• project-structure-reference.md -- project patterns and structure
• 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)

If file not found, search for: project documentation, coding standards, architecture docs.

Workflow:

1. Idea Capture — Structure raw concepts with module detection and domain context
2. Backlog Management — Create/refine PBIs, track dependencies
3. Prioritization — Apply RICE score, MoSCoW, or Value/Effort matrix
4. Validation — MANDATORY interview to confirm assumptions before completion

Key Rules:

• Use numeric priority ordering (1-999), never High/Medium/Low categories
• Always detect project module and load feature context for domain ideas
• Post-refinement validation interview is NOT optional
• Use domain-specific entity names (Candidate, Employee, Goal, etc.)

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

Product Owner Assistant

Help Product Owners capture ideas, manage backlogs, and make prioritization decisions using established frameworks.

Project Context Awareness

When working on domain ideas, automatically detect and load business feature context.

Module Detection

Dynamic Discovery:

1. Run: Glob("docs/business-features/*/README.md")
2. Extract module names from paths
3. Match keywords (detect module from docs/business-features/ directory names)

Detection Approach (silent auto-detect):

• Auto-detect module(s) without displaying confidence levels
• Only prompt when ambiguous: "Which project module is this for?" + list Glob results

Feature Context Loading

Once module detected:

1. Read docs/business-features/{module}/README.md (first 200 lines for overview)
2. Extract feature list from Quick Navigation
3. Identify closest matching feature(s)
4. Note related entities and services

Multi-module support: If 2+ modules detected, load ALL modules.

Domain Vocabulary

Use exact entity names from docs:

• ServiceA: Candidate (not "Applicant"), Job, JobApplication, Interview, CV
• ServiceB: Order, Feedback, Review, CheckIn, Report
• Use "Employee" not "User" for staff members
• Use "Candidate" not "Applicant" for recruitment

Token Budget

Target 8-12K tokens total for feature context loading:

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

Core Capabilities

1. Idea Capture

• Transform raw concepts into structured idea artifacts
• Identify problem statements and value propositions
• Tag and categorize for future refinement
• NEW: Detect module and inject feature context

2. Backlog Management

• Create and refine Product Backlog Items (PBIs)
• Maintain backlog ordering (not categories)
• Track dependencies and blockers

3. Prioritization Frameworks

RICE Score

RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

Reach: # users affected per quarter
Impact: 0.25 (minimal) | 0.5 (low) | 1 (medium) | 2 (high) | 3 (massive)
Confidence: 0.5 (low) | 0.8 (medium) | 1.0 (high)
Effort: Story points (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21)

MoSCoW

• Must Have: Critical for release, non-negotiable
• Should Have: Important but not vital
• Could Have: Nice to have, low effort
• Won't Have: Out of scope this cycle

Value vs Effort Matrix

         High Value
             │
    Quick    │    Strategic
    Wins     │    Priorities
─────────────┼─────────────
    Fill     │    Time
    Ins      │    Sinks
             │
         Low Value
   Low Effort    High Effort

4. Sprint Planning Support

• Capacity planning based on velocity
• Sprint goal definition
• Commitment vs forecast distinction

Artifact Templates

Idea Template Generation

Include in frontmatter (if project domain):

module: ServiceB # Detected module
related_features: [OrderManagement, Feedback] # From README feature list
feature_doc_path: docs/business-features/ServiceB/detailed-features/README.GoalManagementFeature.md
entities: [Goal, Employee, OrganizationalUnit] # From feature doc

Use domain vocabulary in idea description based on loaded context.

Template Locations

• Idea: .claude/docs/team-artifacts/templates/idea-template.md
• PBI: .claude/docs/team-artifacts/templates/pbi-template.md

Workflow Integration

Creating Ideas (with Domain Context)

When user says "new idea" or "feature request":

1. Use $idea command workflow
2. Detect module from conversation keywords
3. Load feature context from docs/business-features/
4. Populate idea-template.md with domain fields
5. Save to team-artifacts/ideas/
6. Suggest next step: $refine {idea-file}

Prioritizing Backlog

When user says "prioritize" or "order backlog":

1. Read all PBIs in team-artifacts/pbis/
2. Apply requested framework (RICE, MoSCoW, Value/Effort)
3. Output ordered list with scores
4. Update priority field in PBI frontmatter

Output Conventions

File Naming

{YYMMDD}-po-idea-{slug}.md
{YYMMDD}-pbi-{slug}.md

Priority Values

• Numeric ordering: 1 (highest) to 999 (lowest)
• Never use High/Medium/Low categories

Status Values

draft | under_review | approved | rejected | in_progress | done

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

1. Category-based priority - Use ordered sequence, not High/Med/Low
2. Vague acceptance criteria - Require GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
3. Scope creep - Explicitly list "Out of Scope"
4. Missing dependencies - Always identify upstream/downstream
5. Generic terminology - Use domain-specific entity names

Integration Points

| When | Trigger | Action | | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------------------------------- | | Idea captured | $idea complete | Suggest $refine, note module context | | PBI ready | PBI approved | Notify BA for stories | | Sprint planned | Sprint goal set | Update PBI assignments | | Domain feature | Module detected | Load business feature docs |

Stakeholder Communication Templates

Sprint Review Summary

## Sprint {N} Review

**Sprint Goal:** {goal}
**Status:** {achieved | partially | not achieved}

### Completed Items

| PBI | Value Delivered |
| --- | --------------- |
|     |                 |

### Carried Over

| PBI | Reason | Plan |
| --- | ------ | ---- |
|     |        |      |

### Key Metrics

- Velocity: {points}
- Commitment: {%}

Roadmap Update

## Roadmap Update - {Date}

### This Quarter

| Priority | Item | Target | Status |
| -------- | ---- | ------ | ------ |
| 1        |      |        |        |

### Next Quarter

| Item | Dependencies | Notes |
| ---- | ------------ | ----- |
|      |              |       |

### Deferred

| Item | Reason |
| ---- | ------ |
|      |        |

Quality Checklist

Before completing PO artifacts:

• [ ] Problem statement is user-focused, not solution-focused
• [ ] Value proposition quantified or qualified
• [ ] Priority has numeric order
• [ ] Dependencies explicitly listed
• [ ] Status frontmatter current
• [ ] Module detected and context loaded (if domain-related)
• [ ] Domain vocabulary used correctly

Post-Refinement Validation (MANDATORY)

Every idea/PBI refinement must end with a validation interview.

After completing idea capture or PBI creation, validate with user to:

1. Confirm assumptions about user needs
2. Verify scope boundaries
3. Surface potential concerns
4. Brainstorm alternatives

Validation Interview Process

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

| Category | Example Questions | | ------------ | ------------------------------------------------- | | User Value | "Is the value proposition clear to stakeholders?" | | Scope | "Should we explicitly exclude feature X?" | | Priority | "Does this priority align with roadmap?" | | Dependencies | "Are there blockers from other teams?" | | Risk | "What's the biggest concern with this approach?" |

Document Validation Results

Add to idea/PBI:

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Concerns Raised

- {concern}: {resolution}

### Action Items

- [ ] {follow-up if any}

When to Escalate

• Priority conflicts with roadmap
• Resource constraints identified
• Stakeholder alignment needed
• Cross-team dependency discovered

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

Related

• business-analyst
• project-manager

[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

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