{PBI Title} Skill | Agent Skills

Codex compatibility note:

Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.

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 uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. 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)

Missing/stale context route: If docs/project-config.json, the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow setup route ($project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, $scan --target=<key>, $claude-md-init) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are missing/stale, ask the user to run $sync-codex; do not auto-run it.

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 authoring, docs/specs/ pathing, or TC format: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md
Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md plus the spec docs above
Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: spec-system-reference.md and source Feature Specs under docs/specs/
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.

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

Quick Summary

Goal: Transform raw ideas into a Definition-of-Ready PBI using BA best practices, hypothesis validation, and domain research — problem-validated, tech-agnostic, with testable acceptance criteria, estimates, and a Dependencies table — so a team can build it without re-asking what or why.

Summary:

Two gates are NON-OPTIONAL: validate the problem hypothesis (Phase 3) before building, and run the 3-5 question validation interview (Phase 7) before writing the PBI — the user decides assumptions, scope, and dependencies, never the AI.
Acceptance criteria are BDD GIVEN/WHEN/THEN (min 3: happy/edge/error) and MUST satisfy the AI-SDD M1-M5 gate (Phase 5.1): tech-agnostic Business Intent, logical FR-/BR- IDs first, observable single-interpretation ACs, rebuild-from-scratch validity.
Estimate twice: Phase 6 drafts story points/man-days against draft scope, then Phase 7.5 RE-DERIVES them against the locked post-interview scope (per SYNC:estimation-framework) — shipping stale Phase 6 numbers is the cardinal failure.
The PBI frontmatter MUST carry story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai, and every PBI MUST include a complete Dependencies table (must-before/can-parallel/blocked-by/independent).

Workflow:

| Phase | Name | Key Activity | Output | | ----- | ------------------- | -------------------------------- | ---------------------- | | 1 | Idea Intake | Load artifact, detect module | Context loaded | | 2 | Domain Research | WebSearch market/competitors | Research summary | | 3 | Problem Hypothesis | Validate problem exists | Confirmed hypothesis | | 4 | Elicitation | Apply BABOK techniques | Requirements extracted | | 5 | Acceptance Criteria | Write BDD scenarios | GIVEN/WHEN/THEN | | 6 | Prioritization | Apply RICE/MoSCoW + Story Points | Priority + estimate | | 7 | Validation | Interview user (MANDATORY) | Assumptions confirmed | | 8 | PBI Generation | Create artifact | PBI file saved |

Key Rules:

NEVER skip hypothesis validation for new features
Validation interview NOT optional — always ask 3-5 questions
Use project domain-specific vocabulary when available
MUST ATTENTION include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai in PBI frontmatter
Every PBI MUST ATTENTION include Dependencies table — types: must-before | can-parallel | blocked-by | independent
docs/specs/ — read existing TCs for related features; recommend test spec generation for new PBIs
docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — read when task involves business entities/models

Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

Component patterns: docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md
Styling/BEM guide: docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md
Design system tokens: docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

Greenfield Mode

Auto-detected: No discovered source directories and no manifest files found. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/, .claude/) don't count.

When greenfield detected:

Skip existing backlog refinement (no backlog exists)
Enable DDD domain modeling: bounded contexts, aggregates, entities, value objects
Capture constraints: team skills, expected scale, hosting preferences, budget — as input signals only
Use WebSearch for market research + competitor analysis
Output domain model artifact alongside PBI artifact
Increase ask the user directly frequency — validate domain boundaries, entity relationships, business rules
[CRITICAL] NEVER ask about tech stack during refinement. Tech stack decided after business analysis. Capture team skills + scale expectations as signals only.

Be skeptical. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.

Phase 0: Locate Active Plan (if in workflow)

If running in workflow (big-feature, greenfield-init, etc.):

Glob plans/*/plan.md sorted by modification time, or check the current task list for plan context
Read plan.md — project scope, goals, architecture decisions, domain model
Read existing research — {plan-dir}/research/*.md for business evaluation, domain analysis
Read docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md (if exists) — existing domain entities
Use plan context — don't re-ask questions answered in prior steps

Phase 1: Idea Intake & Context Loading

Read idea artifact from path or find by ID in team-artifacts/ideas/
Extract: problem statement, value proposition, target users, scope
Check module field; if absent, detect via keywords or prompt user

Phase 2: Domain Research

Trigger: New domain, unclear competitors, --research flag. Skip: Internal tooling, well-understood domain, time-constrained.

Use WebSearch with domain terms. Summarize in max 3 bullets (market context, competitors, best practices).

Phase 3: Problem Hypothesis Validation

Validate hypothesis with user via ask the user directly. 42% of startups fail from no market need — validate before building.

Skip: --skip-hypothesis, validated hypothesis exists, bug fix/tech debt.

Problem Hypothesis Template

**We believe** [target users/persona]
**Experience** [specific problem]
**Because** [root cause]
**We'll know this is true when** [validation metric/evidence]

Value Hypothesis Template

**We believe** [feature/solution]
**Will deliver** [value/benefit]
**To** [target users]
**We'll know we're right when** [success metric]

Validation Process

Draft hypothesis from idea content
Use ask the user directly to validate:
- "Is this the core problem we're solving?"
- "Who exactly experiences this? How often?"
- "What evidence do we have this problem exists?"
Validated → proceed to elicitation
Invalidated → return idea for clarification

Phase 4: Requirements Elicitation (BABOK Core 5)

Think: What information gaps exist? Which technique fills them with least effort + highest confidence?

| Technique | When to Choose | What to Extract | | --------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | | Interviews | Deep insights needed, stakeholder perspectives vary | Stakeholder needs, pain points, constraints | | Workshops | Group consensus needed, multiple stakeholders | Prioritized requirements, consensus decisions | | Document Analysis | Existing systems/processes, regulatory requirements | As-is state, compliance requirements, gaps | | Observation | Users can't articulate needs, workflow unclear | Actual vs stated workflow, hidden requirements | | Prototyping | Visual validation needed, UI/UX requirements vague | Validated UI requirements, interaction patterns |

Technique notes:

Interviews: Open-ended questions (why, how, what-if) → active listening → follow-up on unexpected → document verbatim quotes
Workshops: Define agenda + 90 min timebox → neutral facilitator → round-robin/silent voting → document decisions AND dissent
Observation: Shadow users → note workarounds/pain points → don't interrupt → ask clarifying questions afterward

Phase 5: Acceptance Criteria (BDD Format)

Write GIVEN/WHEN/THEN scenarios. Minimum 3: happy path, edge case, error case.

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

| Practice | Rule | | ------------------------- | --------------------------------- | | Single trigger | "When" clause has ONE action | | 3 scenarios minimum | Happy path, edge case, error case | | No implementation details | Behavior, not how | | Testable outcomes | "Then" must be verifiable | | Stakeholder language | No technical jargon |

Example Scenarios

Scenario: User creates invoice with valid data
  Given user has permission to create invoices
    And user is on the invoice creation page
  When user submits invoice form with all required fields
  Then invoice is created with status "Draft"
    And invoice appears in user's invoice list

Scenario: Invoice creation fails with missing required field
  Given user is on the invoice creation page
  When user submits form without title
  Then validation error "Title is required" is displayed
    And invoice is not created

Scenario: Approver reviews a submitted invoice
  Given approver has invoices awaiting approval
    And an invoice has been submitted for approval
  When approver opens the invoice review page
  Then the invoice is visible with "Pending Review" status

Project Test Case Format

Format: TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} (e.g., TC-GM-001)
Evidence: [Source: namespace/service/id] abstract-anchor format (never file:line)
See business-analyst skill for detailed patterns

Phase 5.1: AI-SDD Mandate Gate (M1-M5) — BLOCKING

See .claude/skills/shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md → "AI-SDD Mandates (M1-M6)" for BLOCKING criteria. The generated PBI MUST satisfy M1-M5 or be reworked before Phase 8 writes it:

Separate intent from implementation (M1/M2): Keep a tech-agnostic Business Intent narrative (Description, Business Value, Acceptance Criteria) free of framework/product/language/design-pattern names and source identifiers. Put any optional implementation hints in a clearly separated Implementation Notes block, and put source references only in evidence carriers ([Source: namespace/service/id], **Evidence**). Prose stays tech-agnostic per docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md §3.
Logical Requirement ID first (M3): Assign each requirement a logical ID (FR-/BR-) as the PRIMARY citation spine; keep [Source: namespace/service/id] abstract-anchor evidence (never physical code coordinates or repository-root paths — those live only in the provenance sidecar) as a SECONDARY carrier in a separate evidence column/section — KEEP it, never remove it.
Testable, observable acceptance criteria (M4): Every acceptance criterion has ONE valid interpretation, observable completion states, named failure modes, and NO implementation details. Reject vague phrasing ("handle appropriately", "fast", "user-friendly").
Rebuild-from-scratch validation (M5): Before emitting, confirm a competent team with zero codebase knowledge could re-implement identical business behavior on ANY stack from the PBI alone. If a reader would have to guess a rule, limit, role, or failure mode, add it as a clarification — never guess.

Phase 5.5: Testability Assessment

Use a direct user question with 2-3 questions:

"Which testing approach fits this PBI?"
- TDD-first: Write test specs before implementation (Recommended for complex features)
- Implement-first: Build feature, then create test specs
- Parallel: Spec and implement simultaneously
"What test levels are needed?"
- Integration tests only (Recommended for backend CQRS)
- Integration + E2E
- Unit + Integration + E2E

For EACH acceptance criterion, generate corresponding test case outline:

| AC | Test Outline | Priority | | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | | AC-1 | TC: Create invoice with valid data → verify persisted | P0 | | AC-2 | TC: Create invoice without title → verify validation error | P1 |

Seed for $spec [mode=tests] if user chooses TDD-first. Document in PBI under ## Testability Assessment.

Phase 6: Prioritization & Estimation

Apply RICE score or MoSCoW for priority. Estimate using Story Points (Modified Fibonacci 1-21).

Quick RICE Score

Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

Reach: Users affected per quarter (100, 500, 1000+)
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 Categories

| Category | Meaning | Action | | --------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------- | | Must Have | Critical, non-negotiable | Include in MVP | | Should Have | Important but not vital | Plan for release | | Could Have | Nice to have, low effort | If time permits | | Won't Have | Out of scope this cycle | Document for future |

Phase 7: Validation Interview (MANDATORY)

Generate 3-5 questions covering assumptions, scope, dependencies, edge cases. Use ask the user directly. Document in PBI. NOT optional.

| Category | Example Question | | ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Assumptions | "We assume X is true. Correct?" | | Scope | "Should Y be included or explicitly excluded?" | | Dependencies | "This requires Z. Is that available?" | | Edge Cases | "What happens when data is empty/null?" | | Business Impact | "Will this affect existing reports/workflows?" | | Entities | "Create new entity or extend existing X?" | | Prod Readiness | "Does this feature need linting, error handling, loading, or Docker setup?" | | Authorization | "Who can perform this action? What roles/permissions are needed?" | | Seed Data | "Does this feature need reference/lookup data to function?" | | Data Migration | "Does this change entity schema? Is data transformation needed?" |

Generate 3-5 questions from assumptions, scope, dependencies
Use a direct user question to interview
Document in PBI under ## Validation Summary
Update PBI based on answers

Validation Output Format

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Assumptions Confirmed

- {assumption}: Confirmed/Modified

### Open Items

- [ ] {follow-up items}

Cross-Cutting & Production Readiness

Capture in PBI template sections: Production Readiness Concerns, Authorization & Access Control, Seed Data, Data Migration.

Phase 7.5: Re-evaluate Estimation (MANDATORY — runs after Validation Interview)

Why this phase exists: Phase 6 estimation runs against a draft scope. Phase 7 (Validation Interview) and Cross-Cutting capture often resolve unknowns, add constraints, or trim/expand scope. The numbers in story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai MUST be re-derived against the locked scope BEFORE Phase 8 writes them into the PBI frontmatter. Estimating once at draft and forgetting is the #1 source of estimation drift in PBIs.

Inputs (locked by end of Phase 7)

Confirmed assumptions, scope inclusions/exclusions
Authorization, seed data, migration, prod-readiness decisions
Newly discovered dependencies or edge cases
Any rescoping the user requested during validation

Re-derive (per `SYNC:estimation-framework`)

Walk the locked scope acceptance criteria + cross-cutting concerns; assign hours per slice.
bottom_up_hours = Σ slice_hours (use the SP table mapping in Phase 6, not eyeballing).
likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity factor for the team/AI mode.
Recompute risk_margin_pct based on remaining unknowns AFTER Phase 7 (margin should usually shrink because validation removed unknowns; rises only if new risks surfaced).
Recompute min-max range from the new likely_days ± margin.
Re-pick the closest Fibonacci story_points and complexity bucket from the re-derived likely_days.

Compare against Phase 6 draft estimate

Compute delta_pct = (new_likely_days - draft_likely_days) / draft_likely_days × 100.

| Delta | Action | | ----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | \|delta\| ≤ 20% | Keep draft estimate. Note reestimate_delta_pct: <signed> + reestimate_reason: "within tolerance, no change" in PBI frontmatter for transparency. | | \|delta\| > 20% | UPDATE story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai. Add reestimate_delta_pct: <signed> + 1-line reestimate_reason explaining what changed (e.g., "auth scope confirmed wider", "seed data dropped per validation"). | | \|delta\| > 50% | UPDATE values AND flag SHOULD-RESCOPE. Surface to user via a direct user question BEFORE Phase 8 writes the PBI: "Re-estimate is +/-X% vs original. Options: (a) accept new estimate as-is, (b) split into 2 PBIs, (c) trim scope back to original estimate, (d) defer." Record the user's decision in ## Validation Summary. |

Output

Updated estimation values (carry into Phase 8 frontmatter)
New frontmatter fields: reestimate_delta_pct, reestimate_reason (always populate even when within tolerance — creates a paper trail for retrospective comparison against actual implementation time)
If rescoped: updated acceptance criteria/scope sections reflecting the user's choice

Run this re-estimation phase against the locked scope — never skip it. A PBI that ships with stale Phase 6 estimates is the source of unreliable velocity data. The whole point is to make the post-validation numbers — not the pre-validation guesses — the ones the team commits to.

Phase 8: PBI Artifact Generation

Path: team-artifacts/pbis/{YYMMDD}-pbi-{slug}.md | ID Pattern: PBI-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}

Artifact Path (canonical convention) — Command $refine → base path team-artifacts/pbis/, role token ba, type pbi. General filename pattern: {YYMMDD}-{role}-{type}-{slug}.md → e.g. 260119-ba-pbi-invoice-approval.md. Slug = lowercased basename, non-alphanumeric → -, trimmed, max 50 chars.

PBI Template

---
id: PBI-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}
title: '{Brief descriptive title}'
module: '{ModuleName — detect from project-config.json modules[]}'
priority: Must Have | Should Have | Could Have | Won't Have
story_points: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21
complexity: Low | Medium | High | Very High
man_days_traditional: '{ Xd (Yd code + Zd test) — from SP table }'
man_days_ai: '{ Xd (Yd code + Zd test) — from SP table with AI }'
status: draft | refined | ready | in_progress | done
rice_score: { calculated }
created: '{YYYY-MM-DD}'
source_idea: '{idea artifact path or ID}'
---

# {PBI Title}

> **Business Intent (tech-agnostic — M1/M2):** Description, Business Value, Business Rules, and Acceptance Criteria below describe observable business behavior only — no framework/product/language/design-pattern names, no source identifiers. Keep implementation hints in `## Implementation Notes` and source references in evidence carriers.

## Requirement IDs (M3 — logical-IDs-first)

| Logical ID   | Statement (tech-agnostic) | Evidence (secondary, re-anchorable)       |
| ------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
| FR-{MOD}-XXX | {functional requirement}  | `[Source: path:line]` or `TBD (pre-impl)` |
| BR-{MOD}-XXX | {business rule}           | `[Source: path:line]` or `TBD (pre-impl)` |

## Description

**As a** {user role}
**I want** {capability}
**So that** {business value}

## Business Value

- {Quantified benefit 1}
- {Quantified benefit 2}

## Problem Hypothesis

**We believe** {target users}
**Experience** {specific problem}
**Because** {root cause}
**We'll know this is true when** {validation metric}

## Business Rules

- BR-{MOD}-XXX: {Rule description}

## Acceptance Criteria

### AC-1: {Title}

Scenario: {Happy path}
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}

### AC-2: {Title}

Scenario: {Edge case}
Given {edge state}
When {action}
Then {handling}

### AC-3: {Title}

Scenario: {Error case}
Given {context}
When {invalid action}
Then error "{message}"

## Testability Assessment

| AC   | Test Outline       | Priority |
| ---- | ------------------ | -------- |
| AC-1 | {test description} | P0       |
| AC-2 | {test description} | P1       |

## Out of Scope

- {Explicitly excluded item 1}
- {Explicitly excluded item 2}

## Dependencies

| Dependency            | Type         | Description                    |
| --------------------- | ------------ | ------------------------------ |
| {PBI/service/feature} | must-before  | {Why this must be done first}  |
| {PBI/service/feature} | can-parallel | {Why this can run in parallel} |
| {PBI/service/feature} | blocked-by   | {What blocks this PBI}         |
| -                     | independent  | {No dependencies — first item} |

## Production Readiness Concerns

| Concern                | Required        | Notes                                                                   |
| ---------------------- | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Code linting/analyzers | Yes/No/Existing | {tool preference or "scaffold default"}                                 |
| Error handling setup   | Yes/No/Existing | {pattern: toast/inline/error-page}                                      |
| Loading indicators     | Yes/No/Existing | {pattern: spinner/skeleton/progress}                                    |
| Docker integration     | Yes/No/Existing | {scope: infra-only/full/none}                                           |
| CI/CD quality gates    | Yes/No/Existing | {mutation-score gate (line-coverage diagnostic only), lint enforcement} |
| Security scanning      | Yes/No/Existing | {dependency audit, SAST}                                                |

## Authorization & Access Control

| Role   | Can Create | Can Read | Can Update | Can Delete | Notes         |
| ------ | ---------- | -------- | ---------- | ---------- | ------------- |
| {Role} | ✅/❌      | ✅/❌    | ✅/❌      | ✅/❌      | {scope notes} |

**New permissions needed:** {Yes/No — list if yes}
**Multi-tenant isolation:** {Yes/No}

## Seed Data Requirements

| Data Type          | Description                          | Owner        | Required |
| ------------------ | ------------------------------------ | ------------ | -------- |
| Reference data     | {lookups, statuses, types}           | Application  | Yes/No   |
| Configuration data | {default settings}                   | Application  | Yes/No   |
| Test seed data     | {entities for integration tests}     | Test project | Yes/No   |
| Performance data   | {large-volume data for load testing} | Test tooling | Yes/No   |

> If no seed data needed: `N/A — no seed data required for this feature.`

## Data Migration

| Change                      | Type                                   | Backward Compatible | Reversible |
| --------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------- | ---------- |
| {schema change description} | Add field / Remove field / Type change | Yes/No              | Yes/No     |

> If no schema changes: `N/A — no schema changes required.`

## Domain Context

**Entities:** {Entity1}, {Entity2}
**Related Features:** {feature doc paths}

## Implementation Notes

> Optional, clearly separated from Business Intent. Implementation hints / source identifiers may appear here and in evidence carriers only — never in the tech-agnostic sections above. If none: `N/A — no implementation hints; rebuild from Business Intent + Requirement IDs.`

## UI Layout

### Wireframe

{ASCII wireframe using box-drawing characters}

**Layout:** {description with approximate proportions/dimensions}

### Components

- **{ComponentName}** — {behavior description} _(tier: common | domain-shared | page/app)_

> Classify per **Component Hierarchy** in UI wireframe protocol — search existing libs before proposing new components.

### States

| State   | Behavior                   |
| ------- | -------------------------- |
| Default | {what user sees initially} |
| Loading | {spinner/skeleton}         |
| Empty   | {empty state message}      |
| Error   | {error handling}           |

> If backend-only: `## UI Layout` → `N/A — Backend-only change. No UI affected.`

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Assumptions Confirmed

- {assumption}: Confirmed/Modified

### Open Items

- [ ] {follow-up items}

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Anti-Pattern | Better Approach | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------- | | Refining vague ideas | Return to $idea for clarification | | Skipping hypothesis validation | Always run Phase 3 for new features | | Solution-first thinking | Start with problem, not solution | | Generic acceptance criteria | Use GIVEN/WHEN/THEN with specifics | | Ignoring domain context | Load project docs if applicable | | Too large PBI (XL+) | Break into smaller items | | Missing "Out of Scope" | Explicitly list exclusions | | Assuming instead of asking | Run validation interview |

Key Rules

Every PBI MUST ATTENTION include Dependencies table — types: must-before, can-parallel, blocked-by, independent. Enables $prioritize and $plan to respect ordering.
No vague dependency descriptions — Each dependency must specify concrete PBI, service, or feature and WHY relationship exists.

BA Team Refinement Context (canonical)

Applies to Writes/Edits under team-artifacts/pbis/, .../stories/, team-artifacts/ideas/. Mirrored for Codex via SYNC:ba-team-decision-model / SYNC:refinement-dor-checklist in AGENTS.md (do not hand-edit the mirror).

Decision Model: 2/3 majority vote (UX BA + Designer BA + Dev BA PIC). Dev BA PIC has technical veto. Disagree-and-Commit: Once decided, everyone commits. No re-litigating. Grooming Override: BA team decision changes only if >75% remaining team votes to override.

Role Scopes:

UX BA: UI/UX flows, wireframes, interaction AC, user research
Designer BA: Design feasibility, product thinking, visual design, equal vote
Dev BA PIC: Technical feasibility review, AI pre-review, DoR gate, grooming presentation

DoR Gate (ALL must pass before grooming):

[ ] User story template (As a... I want... So that...)
[ ] AC testable (GIVEN/WHEN/THEN, no vague language)
[ ] Wireframes attached (UX BA) + UI design ready (Designer BA)
[ ] AI pre-review passed ($review-artifact --type=pbi or $pbi-challenge)
[ ] Story points estimated by AI
[ ] Dependencies table complete

Refinement Cadence: Always one sprint ahead. Weekly meeting (60 min + ~3h async). Skills: Use $pbi-challenge for collaborative review, $dor-gate before grooming.

Definition of Ready (INVEST)

| Criterion | Check | | ------------------- | ---------------------------- | | Independent | No blocking dependencies | | Negotiable | Details can be refined | | Valuable | Clear user/business value | | Estimable | Team can estimate (XS-XL) | | Small | Single sprint | | Testable | 3+ GIVEN/WHEN/THEN scenarios | | Problem Validated | Hypothesis confirmed | | Domain Context | BR/entity context loaded | | Stakeholder Aligned | Validation interview done | | Prod Readiness | Concerns documented |

Project Integration

For domain PBIs: detect module from docs/specs/ directory names, extract business rules from docs/specs/{module}/, load entity context from feature doc. Target 8-12K tokens for feature context.

Role Skill: business-analyst (detailed patterns)
Input: $idea output
Next Step: $story, $spec [mode=tests] (Recommended for TDD), $design-spec
Prioritization: $prioritize

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION after completing this skill, use a direct user question to present these options. NEVER skip because task seems "simple" or "obvious":

"$why-review (Recommended)" — Validate design rationale, alternatives, risk assessment before $story or implementation
"$domain-analysis" — If PBI creates/modifies domain entities, model bounded contexts before writing stories
"$story" — Break PBI into implementable user stories
"$pbi-mockup" — Generate HTML mockup from PBI
"$spec [mode=tests]" — If using TDD approach
"Skip, continue manually" — user decides

[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. Simple tasks: ask user whether to skip.

External Memory: Complex/lengthy work → write findings to plans/reports/ — prevents context loss.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim requires file:line proof or traced evidence, confidence >80% to act.

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

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

UI System Context — For ANY task touching .ts, .html, .scss, or .css files:

MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:

docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md — component base classes, stores, forms

docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive

docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md — design tokens, component inventory, icons

Reference docs/project-config.json for project-specific paths.

Estimation Framework — Bottom-up first; SP DERIVED; output min-max range when likely ≥3d. Stack-agnostic. Baseline: 3-5yr dev, 6 productive hrs/day. AI estimate assumes Claude Code + project context.

Method:

Blast Radius pass (below) — drives code AND test cost

Decompose phases → hours/phase → bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours

likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor

Sum Risk Margin (base + add-ons) → max_days = likely_days × (1 + margin)

min_days = likely_days × 0.9

Output as range when likely_days ≥3; single point allowed <3 (still record margin)

man_days_ai = same range × AI speedup

story_points DERIVED from likely_days via SP-Days — NEVER driver. Disagreement >50% → trust bottom-up

Productivity factor: 0.8 strong scaffolding+codegen+AI hooks · 1.0 mature default · 1.2 weak patterns · 1.5 greenfield

Cost Driver Heuristic (apply BEFORE work-type row):

UI dominates in CRUD/business apps — 1.5-3x backend (states, validation, responsive, a11y, polish)

Backend dominates ONLY: multi-aggregate invariants, cross-service contracts, schema migrations, heavy query/perf, new event flows

Reuse-vs-Create axis (PRIMARY lever, per layer):

| UI tier | Cost | | -------------------------------------------- | -------- | | Reuse component on existing screen | 0.1-0.3d | | Add control/column to existing screen | 0.3-0.8d | | Compose components into NEW screen | 1-2d | | NEW screen, custom layout/states/validation | 2-4d | | NEW shared/common component (themed, tested) | 3-6d+ |

| Backend tier | Cost | | ---------------------------------------------------- | --------- | | Reuse query/handler from new place | 0.1-0.3d | | Small update existing handler/entity | 0.3-0.8d | | NEW query on existing repo/model | 0.5-1d | | NEW command/handler on existing aggregate (additive) | 1-2d | | NEW aggregate/entity (repo, validation, events) | 2-4d | | NEW cross-service contract OR schema migration | 2-4d each | | Multi-aggregate invariant / heavy domain rule | 3-5d |

Rule: Sum tiers across UI+backend+tests, apply productivity factor. Reuse short-circuits tiers — call out.

Test-Scope drivers (compute test_count EXPLICITLY — "+tests" hand-wave is #1 failure):

| Driver | Count | | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | Happy-path journeys | 1 per story / AC main flow | | State-machine transitions | reachable transitions × allowed actors | | Multi-entity state combos | state(A) × state(B) — REACHABLE only, not Cartesian | | Authorization matrix | (owner, non-owner, elevated, unauth) × each mutation | | Validation rules | 1 per required field / boundary / format / cross-field | | UI states (per new screen/dialog) | happy, loading, empty, error, partial — present only | | Negative paths / invariants | 1 per violatable business rule |

| Test tier (Trad, incl. setup+assert+flake) | Cost | | ------------------------------------------ | -------- | | 1-5 cases, fixtures reused | 0.3-0.5d | | 6-12 cases, 1 new fixture | 0.5-1d | | 13-25 cases, multi-entity setup | 1-2d | | 26-50 cases OR new state-machine coverage | 2-3d | | >50 cases OR full E2E journey | 3-5d |

Test multipliers: new fixture/seed harness +0.5d · cross-service/bus assertion +0.3d each · UI E2E ×1.5 · each new role +1-2 cases

Blast Radius (mandatory pre-pass — affects code AND test):

Files/components directly modified — count

Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) — count

Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) — list

Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) — yes/no

Regression scope — areas needing re-test

Rule: Complex touch → add risk_factors. Each downstream consumer → +1-3 regression cases. Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex → re-evaluate SPLIT before estimating.

Risk Margin (drives max bound):

| likely_days | Base margin | | ------------------- | ------------------------------- | | <1d trivial | +10% | | 1-2d small additive | +20% | | 3-4d real feature | +35% | | 5-7d large | +50% | | 8-10d very large | +75% | | >10d | +100% AND flag SHOULD SPLIT |

Risk-factor add-ons (additive — enumerate in risk_factors):

| Factor | +margin | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | | touches-complex-existing-feature (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central) | +20% | | cross-service-contract change | +25% | | schema-migration-on-populated-data | +25% | | new-tech-or-unfamiliar-pattern | +30% | | regression-fan-out (≥3 downstream areas re-test) | +20% | | performance-or-latency-critical | +20% | | concurrency-race-event-ordering | +25% | | shared-common-code (multi-consumer/multi-app) | +25% | | unclear-requirements-or-design | +30% |

Collapse rule: total margin >100% → STOP, split (padding past 2x is dishonesty). Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5 → under-estimated, widen.

Work-Type Caps (hard ceilings on likely_days): | Work type | Max SP | Max likely | | --- | --- | --- | | Single field / config flag / style fix | 1 | 0.5d | | Add property to existing model + bind to existing UI | 2 | 1d | | Additive endpoint + minor UI control (button/menu/column), reuses fixtures | 3 | 2-3d | | Additive endpoint + NEW UI surface OR additive multi-layer + new domain rule + 2+ test files | 5 | 3-5d | | NEW model/aggregate OR migration OR cross-module contract OR heavy test (>1.5d) OR NEW UI + non-trivial backend | 8 | 5-7d | | NEW UI surface + (NEW aggregate OR migration OR cross-service contract) | 13 | SHOULD split | | Cross-service contract + migration combined | 13 | SHOULD split | | Beyond | 21 | MUST split |

SP→Days (validation only): 1=0.5d/0.25d · 2=1d/0.35d · 3=2d/0.65d · 5=4d/1.0d · 8=6d/1.5d · 13=10d/2.0d (Trad/AI likely) AI speedup: SP 1≈2x · 2-3≈3x · 5-8≈4x · 13+≈5x. AI cost = (code_gen × 1.3) + (test_gen × 1.3) (30% review overhead).

MANDATORY frontmatter:
story_points: <n>
complexity: low | medium | high | critical
man_days_traditional: '<min>-<max>d' # range when likely ≥3d; '<N>d' when <3d
man_days_ai: '<min>-<max>d'
risk_margin_pct: <n> # base + add-ons
risk_factors: [touches-complex-existing-feature, regression-fan-out] # closed-list from add-ons; [] if none
blast_radius:
    touched_areas: <n>
    complex_touched: <n>
    downstream_consumers: [list or count]
    shared_common_code: yes | no
estimate_scope_included: [code, integration-tests, frontend, i18n, docs]
estimate_scope_excluded: [unit-tests, e2e, perf, deployment, code-review-rounds]
estimate_reasoning: |
    5-7 lines covering:
    (a) UI tier — row applied
    (b) Backend tier — row applied
    (c) Test scope — case breakdown by driver, file count, fixtures, tier row
    (d) Cost driver — dominant tier + why
    (e) Blast radius — touched, complex, regression scope
    (f) Risk factors — list driving margin; why not larger/smaller
    Example: "UI: compose Form/Table/Dialog → NEW screen (~1.5d). Backend: NEW command on existing aggregate,
    reuses validation+repo (~1d). Tests: 4 transitions × 2 actors + 3 validation + 2 UI states = 13 cases,
    1 new fixture → tier 13-25 ~1.5d. Driver: UI composition + new states. Blast: 4 areas, 1 complex.
    Risk: base 35% + touches-complex +20% = 55% → max 3.9d → range 2.5-4d."
Sanity self-check:

likely_days ≥3d and single-point? → reject, must be range

Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5d? → under-estimated, widen

Margin >100%? → STOP, split instead of buffer

Complex existing feature touched, no regression budget in (c)? → reject

Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex, no split discussion? → reject

Purely additive on existing model AND existing UI? → cap SP 3 unless tests >1.5d

NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard)? → SP 5+ even if backend one endpoint

Backend cross-service / migration / multi-aggregate? → SP 8+ regardless of UI

bottom_up_hours / 6 vs SP-Days disagreement >50%? → trust bottom-up, downgrade SP

Without tests, SP drops ≥1 bucket? → tests dominate; state explicitly

Reasoning called out UI vs backend vs blast vs risk factors? → if missing, add

UI Wireframe — Process visual design input (Figma URLs, screenshots, wireframes) via appropriate tool BEFORE creating wireframes. Use box-drawing ASCII characters for spatial layout. Classify every component into exactly ONE tier: Common (cross-app reusable) / Domain-Shared (cross-domain) / Page (single-page). Duplicate UI code = wrong tier. Search existing component libraries before creating new (>=80% match = reuse). Detail level varies by skill (idea=rough, story=full decomposition).

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):

Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty

Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact

Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale

Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting

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, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION estimation: bottom-up phase hours drive man_days_traditional (Σh/6 × productivity_factor); SP DERIVED. UI cost usually dominates — bump SP one bucket if NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard). Frontmatter MUST include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai, estimate_scope_included, estimate_scope_excluded, estimate_reasoning (UI vs backend cost driver). Cap SP 3 for additive-on-existing-model+existing-UI unless test scope >1.5d. SP 13 SHOULD split, SP 21 MUST split.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION read frontend-patterns-reference, scss-styling-guide, design-system/README before any UI change.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

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 — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: emit a Definition-of-Ready PBI — problem-validated, tech-agnostic, with testable acceptance criteria, estimates, and a Dependencies table — so a team can build it without re-asking what or why

Protocols in force — MUST ATTENTION (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):

AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
UI System Context: ALWAYS read frontend-patterns, scss-styling-guide, design-system before any UI change.
Estimation Framework: bottom-up hours drive man-days; SP derived; UI cost usually dominates.
UI Wireframe: ASCII layout, classify every component into ONE tier, reuse before creating.
Critical Thinking: traced proof per claim, confidence >80% to act, NEVER guess.
Sequential Thinking: multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence-% closer.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Phase 3 problem-hypothesis validation + Phase 7 validation interview (3-5 questions) are NON-OPTIONAL for new features — user decides assumptions/scope/dependencies, AI NEVER auto-decides — why: 42% of products fail from no market need; a silent AI assumption ships an unvalidated build
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Phase 7.5 RE-DERIVES story_points/complexity/man_days_traditional/man_days_ai against the LOCKED post-interview scope (per SYNC:estimation-framework) — NEVER ship stale Phase 6 draft numbers — why: pre-validation guesses are the #1 source of unreliable velocity data
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small tasks via task tracking BEFORE starting; mark one in_progress, complete it before the next; on context loss the current task list first — why: compaction wipes prior-work memory, resume don't duplicate
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via a direct user question — NEVER auto-decide
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION acceptance criteria are BDD GIVEN/WHEN/THEN (min 3: happy/edge/error) and MUST satisfy the Phase 5.1 AI-SDD M1-M5 gate — tech-agnostic Business Intent, logical FR-/BR- IDs first, observable single-interpretation ACs, rebuild-from-scratch validity — why: a reader who must guess a rule/limit/role re-implements the wrong behavior
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every PBI MUST include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai frontmatter AND a complete Dependencies table (must-before/can-parallel/blocked-by/independent) — fill even when independent
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION keep PBI Business Intent prose tech-agnostic — NO framework/product/language/design-pattern names; implementation hints go ONLY in ## Implementation Notes, source refs ONLY in [Source: namespace/service/id] evidence carriers — why: a tech-leaked spec is not rebuildable on another stack (M1/M2)
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION greenfield mode: NEVER ask about tech stack during refinement — capture team skills/scale as signals only; tech decided after business analysis
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION before refining domain PBIs, read existing TCs in docs/specs/ and docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md; grep 3+ existing PBIs/specs for local conventions before authoring — why: project vocabulary and patterns override generic BABOK/INVEST defaults
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line (or [Source: ...]) evidence for every claim, confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend — NEVER present a guess as fact
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION complex/lengthy work → persist findings to plans/reports/ incrementally — why: prevents silent loss of all findings on context exhaustion
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add final review task to verify work quality
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add task: run $why-review — validate PBI design rationale before $story or $spec [mode=tests]
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add task: run $pbi-challenge — Dev BA PIC review before $dor-gate or $story

Anti-Rationalization:

| Evasion | Rebuttal | | ------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "Simple PBI, skip hypothesis validation" | Wrong assumption wastes more time than validation check. Apply Phase 3 always. | | "Validation interview is optional here" | NEVER optional — Phase 7 user decides assumptions, AI doesn't | | "Phase 6 estimate is fine, skip re-derive" | Phase 7.5 is MANDATORY — interview changed scope; stale numbers corrupt velocity | | "Skip Dependencies table, no blockers" | Unknown blockers exist. Always fill table — even if independent | | "Skip story points, just write ACs" | story_points, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai mandatory in frontmatter | | "Add a stack hint, it clarifies the AC" | Business Intent stays tech-agnostic (M1/M2) — hints go to ## Implementation Notes only | | "Domain context not needed for small PBI" | Small PBIs touch entities. Read domain-entities-reference first |

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

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Phase 3 hypothesis + Phase 7 interview are NON-OPTIONAL — user decides, AI never auto-decides. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Phase 7.5 re-derives estimates against locked scope — never ship stale Phase 6 numbers. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION keep Business Intent tech-agnostic; cite file:line/[Source:] evidence, confidence >80% to act.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/.ck.json + .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md (:full blocks) + .claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs

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

Generic portability boundary: Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md. Read docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md, then open the project reference docs named there. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or docs/specs/ work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md, and workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init (or the narrow lower-level route such as $project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, or $scan --target=<key>) before ordinary project-specific work. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.

DETECT: If the prompt starts with an explicit slash skill/workflow command, execute it directly. Otherwise match the prompt against the workflow catalog and skill list.
ANALYZE: Choose the best option: execute directly, invoke a skill, activate a standard workflow, or compose a custom step combination.
AUTO-SELECT: Pick the best option yourself. Do not ask the user to choose between direct execution, skill, standard workflow, or custom workflow.
ACTIVATE: For a selected workflow, call $start-workflow <workflowId>; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task.
CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow/skill/custom steps before execution when the selected path has multiple steps.
EXECUTE: Advance per the Workflow Step Advancement & Parallel Phases rule in your context instructions — model-driven; a sub-agent completion advances a step identically to an inline call; a parallel-phase group is an all-return barrier (advance only after ALL members return, never serialize it)

Shared AI-SDD Protocol Markers

Source: .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md

SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract

AI-SDD Artifact Contract — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned.

Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in .claude; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs.

Preserve cycle: spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs.

Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update.

Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner.

Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional.

Update .claude source first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync

If docs/project-config.json, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.

Active reference: shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md in the active skills root.

SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract:reminder

MANDATORY Apply shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md; keep reusable AI-SDD in .claude and local rules in project docs.
MANDATORY Code-to-spec extraction is reference-only until canonical acceptance; any supported AI tool may execute with synced context.
MANDATORY Update .claude source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md.
MANDATORY Missing or stale project config, root instruction files, or required reference docs route project-specific work through $project-init or the narrow setup route automatically. [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.

[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:

Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security-review/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [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. Goal-driven execution: Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass. Tests verify intent: Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.

Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons)

Re-read files after context compaction. Edit requires prior Read in same context; compaction wipes read state. Re-read before editing.
Grep for old terms after bulk replacements. AI over-trusts find/replace completeness. Grep full repo after bulk edits for missed refs in docs/configs/catalogs.
Check downstream references before deleting. Deletions cascade doc/code staleness. Map referencing files before removal.
After memory loss, check existing state before creating new. Compaction wipes prior-work memory. Query current state to resume — never blindly duplicate.
Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, method signatures. Grep to confirm existence before documenting/referencing.
Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream consumers. Trace the full chain.
When renaming, grep ALL consumer file types. Some file types silently ignore missing refs (no compile error). Search code, templates, configs, generated files.
Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Code existing ≠ code executing. Trace early exits, error branches, conditional skips — not just happy path.
Update docs that embed canonical data when source changes. Docs inlining derived data (workflows, schemas, configs) go stale silently. Update all embedding docs alongside source.
Verify sub-agent results after context recovery. Background agents may finish while parent compacted — grep-verify output, don't trust assumed completion.
Cross-check full target list against sub-agent assignments. Parallel sub-agents by category miss boundary items. Reconcile union of assignments against target list before proceeding.
Sub-agents inherit knowledge only from their agent .md definition — use custom agent types, not built-in Explore. Tool adoption = permission + knowledge + enforcement (numbered workflow step).
Persist sub-agent findings incrementally, not as a final batch. Long sub-agents hit cutoffs before final write — findings lost. Instruct append-per-section to report file.
When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
Grep ALL removed names after extraction/refactoring. Primary file "done" ≠ secondary files clean. Grep entire scope for every removed symbol before declaring complete.
Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Pattern-matching as "wrong" skips context. Before changing any constant/limit/flag: read comments, git blame, surrounding code.
Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One build green ≠ all green. Multi-stack changes (backend/frontend/tests/docs) require verifying EVERY output.
Evaluate fit before copying a nearby pattern. Closest example ≠ matching preconditions — verify the new context shares the same constraints, base classes, scope, lifetime.
Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. Don't dive into first plausible cause. List EVERY precondition (config, env vars, paths, DB, endpoints, creds, versions, DI, data). Verify each against evidence (grep/query — not reasoning). Ask "what would falsify this?" — if nothing, it's not a hypothesis. Most expensive failure: going deeper in "obvious" layer while bug sits in layer never questioned.
Surgical changes — apply the diff test (context-aware). Two modes: (1) Bug fix → every line traces to the bug; no restyling; orphan cleanup only for imports YOUR changes made unused. (2) Review/enhancement → implement improvements AND announce as "Enhancement beyond main request: [what]". Never silently scope-creep. Diff test: "Would this line exist if I wasn't asked to do X?" — if no, delete or announce.
Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations → present each with effort: "[Request] could mean (1) [N h], (2) [N h]. Which matters?" List scope/format/volume/constraints assumptions first. If simpler path exists, say so. Never silently pick.
[MANDATORY FIRST ACTION] ALWAYS activate a suitable skill or workflow BEFORE responding. Match task against workflow catalog + skill list; invoke via skill invocation or $start-workflow <workflowId>. NEVER answer or write code before checking. Skip = protocol violation.
Why-Review adversarial mindset — apply when reviewing any plan, decision, or design. Default SKEPTIC not VALIDATOR: steel-man a rejected alternative, invert each stated reason ("what does it sacrifice?"), stress-test top 2-3 assumptions, run pre-mortem ("ships, fails in 3 months — what breaks?"), surface 1-2 alternatives author missed. Section presence ≠ quality; quality = causal reasoning + concrete mitigations + evidence, not "it's better" or "monitor closely".
Front-load report-write in sub-agent prompts for large reviews. Many-file sub-agents hit budget before final write — findings lost. Design prompts so: (1) report-write is first explicit deliverable, (2) append per-file/section (not batched), (3) scope bounded so reads don't exhaust budget. Truncated mid-sentence with no report file → spawn narrower scope, don't retry same prompt.
After context compaction, re-verify all prior phase outcomes before continuing. Summaries describe intent, not environment state (git index, filesystem, processes). On resume, FIRST audit: git status, re-read modified files, verify filesystem. Every "completed" claim is an untested hypothesis until evidence confirms.
OOM/memory: check row count before row size. Triage: (1) Unbounded query — no DB filter for trigger? Push filter to DB; eliminates OOM. (2) Large rows? Projection reduces proportionally. Row reduction > projection in ROI.
Keep domain concepts out of generic/shared/infrastructure layers. Reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/customer/product IDs, business entities, feature rules. Leak compiles + runs → passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Keep shared type domain-free; push domain fields/logic down into the consumer via subclass/composition. — why: a layer coupled to one consumer's domain is no longer reusable.

Agent Skills: {PBI Title}

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files