--- name: refine version: 2.3.0 description: '[Project Management] Use when converting ideas to PBIs, validating problem hypotheses, adding acceptance criteria, or refining requirements.' --- > **[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. **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` (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text) - 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:** 1. Skip existing backlog refinement (no backlog exists) 2. Enable DDD domain modeling: bounded contexts, aggregates, entities, value objects 3. Capture constraints: team skills, expected scale, hosting preferences, budget — as input signals only 4. Use WebSearch for market research + competitor analysis 5. Output domain model artifact alongside PBI artifact 6. Increase AskUserQuestion frequency — validate domain boundaries, entity relationships, business rules 7. **[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.): 1. Glob `plans/*/plan.md` sorted by modification time, or check `TaskList` for plan context 2. Read `plan.md` — project scope, goals, architecture decisions, domain model 3. Read existing research — `{plan-dir}/research/*.md` for business evaluation, domain analysis 4. Read `docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md` (if exists) — existing domain entities 5. Use plan context — don't re-ask questions answered in prior steps ## Phase 1: Idea Intake & Context Loading 1. Read idea artifact from path or find by ID in `team-artifacts/ideas/` 2. Extract: problem statement, value proposition, target users, scope 3. 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 AskUserQuestion. 42% of startups fail from no market need — validate before building. **Skip:** `--skip-hypothesis`, validated hypothesis exists, bug fix/tech debt. ### Problem Hypothesis Template ```markdown **We believe** [target users/persona] **Experience** [specific problem] **Because** [root cause] **We'll know this is true when** [validation metric/evidence] ``` ### Value Hypothesis Template ```markdown **We believe** [feature/solution] **Will deliver** [value/benefit] **To** [target users] **We'll know we're right when** [success metric] ``` ### Validation Process 1. Draft hypothesis from idea content 2. Use AskUserQuestion to validate: - "Is this the core problem we're solving?" - "Who exactly experiences this? How often?" - "What evidence do we have this problem exists?" 3. Validated → proceed to elicitation 4. 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. ```gherkin 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 ```gherkin 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 `AskUserQuestion` with 2-3 questions: 1. "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 2. "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 AskUserQuestion. 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?" | 1. Generate 3-5 questions from assumptions, scope, dependencies 2. Use `AskUserQuestion` to interview 3. Document in PBI under `## Validation Summary` 4. Update PBI based on answers ### Validation Output Format ```markdown ## 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`) 1. Walk the **locked** scope acceptance criteria + cross-cutting concerns; assign hours per slice. 2. `bottom_up_hours = Σ slice_hours` (use the SP table mapping in Phase 6, not eyeballing). 3. `likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6)` × productivity factor for the team/AI mode. 4. 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). 5. Recompute `min-max range` from the new likely_days ± margin. 6. 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: ` + `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: ` + 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 `AskUserQuestion` 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}` ### PBI Template ```markdown --- 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 | {coverage threshold, 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. ## Definition of Ready (INVEST) | Criterion | Check | | ------------------- | ---------------------------- | | **I**ndependent | No blocking dependencies | | **N**egotiable | Details can be refined | | **V**aluable | Clear user/business value | | **E**stimable | Team can estimate (XS-XL) | | **S**mall | Single sprint | | **T**estable | 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. --- ## Related - **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 `AskUserQuestion` 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 `TaskCreate` 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: > > **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. > **Keep domain concepts out of generic/shared/infrastructure layers.** A reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/customer/product IDs, business entities, feature rules. The leak compiles and runs, so it passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Push domain fields/logic down into the consumer via subclass or composition. > **UI System Context** — For ANY task touching `.ts`, `.html`, `.scss`, or `.css` files: > > **MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:** > > 1. `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md` — component base classes, stores, forms > 2. `docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md` — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive > 3. `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:** > > 1. **Blast Radius pass** (below) — drives code AND test cost > 2. Decompose phases → hours/phase → `bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours` > 3. `likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor` > 4. Sum **Risk Margin** (base + add-ons) → `max_days = likely_days × (1 + margin)` > 5. `min_days = likely_days × 0.9` > 6. Output as range when `likely_days ≥3`; single point allowed `<3` (still record margin) > 7. `man_days_ai` = same range × AI speedup > 8. `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):** > > 1. Files/components directly modified — count > 2. Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) — count > 3. Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) — list > 4. Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) — yes/no > 5. 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:** > > ```yaml > story_points: > complexity: low | medium | high | critical > man_days_traditional: '-d' # range when likely ≥3d; 'd' when <3d > man_days_ai: '-d' > risk_margin_pct: # base + add-ons > risk_factors: [touches-complex-existing-feature, regression-fan-out] # closed-list from add-ons; [] if none > blast_radius: > touched_areas: > complex_touched: > 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 > **Scaffold Production Readiness** — Every scaffolded project MUST ATTENTION include 5 foundations: > > 1. **Code Quality Tooling** — linting, formatting, pre-commit hooks, CI gates. Specific tool choices → `docs/project-reference/` or `project-config.json`. > 2. **Error Handling Foundation** — HTTP interceptor, error classification (4xx/5xx taxonomy), user notification, global uncaught handler. > 3. **Loading State Management** — counter-based tracker (not boolean toggle), skip-token for background requests, 300ms flicker guard. > 4. **Docker Development Environment** — compose profiles (`dev`/`test`/`infra`), multi-stage Dockerfile, health checks on all services, non-root production user. > 5. **Integration Points** — document each outbound boundary; configure retry + circuit breaker + timeout; integration tests for happy path and failure path. > > **BLOCK `/cook` if any foundation is unchecked.** Present 2-3 options per concern via `AskUserQuestion` before implementing. > **Cross-Cutting Quality** — Check across all changed files: > > 1. **Error handling consistency** — same error patterns across related files > 2. **Logging** — structured logging with correlation IDs for traceability > 3. **Security** — no hardcoded secrets, input validation at boundaries, auth checks present > 4. **Performance** — no N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, or blocking calls in async paths > 5. **Observability** — health checks, metrics, tracing spans for new endpoints > **UI Wireframe** — For UI artifacts: include ASCII wireframe (box-drawing chars), component tree with EXISTING/NEW classification and tier (common | domain-shared | page/app), interaction flow (user action → system response → UI update), states table (default/loading/empty/error), and responsive breakpoint behavior. Process Figma URLs or screenshots BEFORE wireframing. Search existing component libs before proposing new components. Backend-only changes: `N/A — Backend-only change. No UI affected.` > **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 AskUserQuestion · ≥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. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** verify 5 production-readiness foundations (code quality, error handling, loading state, Docker, integration points) for scaffold PBIs. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** check error handling, logging, security, performance, and observability across changed files. **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. ## 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 - **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small tasks via `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting - **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate decisions with user via `AskUserQuestion` — NEVER auto-decide - **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 always. | | "Validation interview is optional here" | NEVER optional — user decides assumptions, AI doesn't | | "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 | | "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 TaskCreate.

refine

Install this skill

Comments