--- name: refine version: 2.3.1 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. **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:** 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}` > **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 ```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 | {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 | | ------------------- | ---------------------------- | | **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: > > **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:** > > 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 > **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):** > > 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. **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 `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting; mark one `in_progress`, complete it before the next; on context loss `TaskList` first — why: compaction wipes prior-work memory, resume don't duplicate - **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate decisions with user via `AskUserQuestion` — 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 TaskCreate. **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.

refine

Install this skill

Comments