aidlc-security-patch

name	aidlc-security-patch
generated-by	aidlc-runner-gen
description	Run the AI-DLC workflow with the security-patch scope baked in — no scope detection. CVE response. Packaging over `/aidlc --scope security-patch`, which works without this skill.
argument-hint	[description | --status | --stage <slug|#> | --phase <name|#>]
user-invocable	true

AI-DLC — security-patch scope

Drive the AI-DLC engine with the security-patch scope fixed. This is the same deterministic forwarding loop the /aidlc orchestrator runs, with --scope security-patch baked into the first next so scope detection is skipped. The engine owns all routing; the conductor persona arrives on the first directive's conductor_persona field — adopt it for the whole run.

The loop

1. directive = bun .claude/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts next --scope security-patch $ARGUMENTS
2. Before acting on each directive, read .claude/aidlc-common/protocols/stage-protocol.md once per session, then read every .claude/aidlc-common/protocols/stage-protocol-<module>.md named by directive.protocol_modules. Load every listed module before acting; skip only a module already loaded earlier in this session. Then act on directive.kind exactly as the orchestrator does (run-stage / invoke-swarm / ask / print / error / done).
3. bun .claude/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts report --stage <directive.stage> --result <outcome> [--user-input "<text>"] when the directive names a stage; omit --stage only for non-stage report round-trips.
4. Repeat from step 1 until directive.kind == done.

Pass $ARGUMENTS through verbatim after --scope security-patch; the engine parses any flags (--status, --stage, …) and the --scope from the state file always wins on an existing workflow, so re-running a started workflow resumes it. To run a different scope, use /aidlc --scope <other> instead.

Starting unrelated new work?

Before you forward $ARGUMENTS on step 1, make the SAME recognise-vs-route judgment the /aidlc orchestrator makes: does this input continue the active intent, or does it describe a genuinely new, unrelated piece of work? This matters most when the active intent is already complete: then next correctly returns done (the engine is read-only and never creates alongside a live intent), and the loop above would simply stop. New work is NOT a continuation; the escape hatch is next --new-intent.

• Default to CONTINUATION. Treat the input as new-work ONLY when it clearly names a distinct feature/bug/unit unrelated to the active intent's subject (bun .claude/tools/aidlc-utility.ts intent --json gives its slug and status). When in doubt, continue: false-positive offers are the main risk.

• On genuine new-work, OFFER, never auto-create. Surface an AskUserQuestion showing the active intent and the proposed new one, including the scope you'd give the new intent. Default that scope to this runner's baked security-patch (the new work is likely the same flavour that made the user reach for this command), but if the new work clearly fits a DIFFERENT scope, propose that instead, and name it so the human can correct it. Lead the affirmative option with "Yes" (e.g. "Yes, start a second intent"). Starting a workflow is a mutation gated on a human yes.

• On CONFIRM, re-run next with --new-intent, the confirmed scope, and the new-work text:

  bun .claude/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts next --new-intent --scope <the confirmed scope> "<the new-work description>"
  

  The engine returns a print directive naming the intent-create command (with the --label "<2-3 word kebab essence>" placeholder). Act on it exactly as the loop's print handling describes: create the intent, then, because this is a NEW, unrelated intent and this session still carries the previous intent's context, STOP and follow the directive's hand-off: tell the user to start a fresh session (use /clear (or restart Claude Code)) and invoke /aidlc to begin the new intent with a clean slate. Nothing is lost; the intent is saved on disk.

• On DECLINE, proceed with the active intent, the normal loop above.