Governance and quality-contract skill for every step in the Legacy Spec Factory reverse chain. Use when authoring, executing, or reviewing any pipeline step (inventory, program analysis, flow analysis, module analysis, spec writing, spec review, forward SDLC handoff) and you need a shared INPUT → EXECUTION → OUTPUT → VALIDATION contract. This is not a business analyzer — it does not produce inventory, program analyses, specs, or reviews itself. It defines, checks, and reports on the quality contract those skills must satisfy.
التثبيت
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
Governance and quality-contract skill for every step in the Legacy Spec Factory reverse chain. Use when authoring, executing, or reviewing any pipeline step (inventory, program analysis, flow analysis, module analysis, spec writing, spec review, forward SDLC handoff) and you need a shared INPUT → EXECUTION → OUTPUT → VALIDATION contract. This is not a business analyzer — it does not produce inventory, program analyses, specs, or reviews itself. It defines, checks, and reports on the quality contract those skills must satisfy.
Legacy Step Contract
Skill Card
Field
Notes
Problem solved
Defines the shared INPUT -> EXECUTION -> OUTPUT -> VALIDATION contract every Legacy Spec Factory step must follow.
Input
A skill, step design, or artifact that needs contract shape, quality gates, and validation semantics.
Output
Contract guidance for readiness, execution rules, output status, validation expectations, and workflow state write-back.
Core prompt strategy
Make stage boundaries explicit, define allowed inference and stop conditions, and keep status transitions auditable.
Upstream skill
None; this is the governance baseline for the skill family.
Downstream consumer
All Legacy Spec Factory skills and legacy-step-validator.
Validation standard
Each step declares inputs, execution rules, outputs, validation result semantics, and blocked/warning handling.
Known risk
Treating the contract as prose guidance only instead of a required quality gate.
Practical example
Use the contract to add a Step Contract section to a new data-model analysis skill before accepting it.
Purpose
Every step in the Legacy Spec Factory reverse chain follows the same shape:
INPUT → EXECUTION → OUTPUT → VALIDATION
This skill formalizes that shape into a portable Step Contract so that
authors, agents, and reviewers share one vocabulary across:
The skill defines (or reviews) Step Contract blocks and the Step
Validation Report shape. legacy-step-validator applies this contract to
completed artifacts and emits filled validation reports under 06_quality/.
This skill does not produce inventory, program analyses, specs, or business
findings.
When to Use
Trigger on any of these signals:
An author or agent is designing a new pipeline step and needs a contract
to anchor it.
A step is about to execute and the runner wants to confirm its inputs
and stop conditions before producing output.
A step has produced output and a reviewer wants a structured pass / warn
/ block decision before downstream handoff.
A skill review (docs/skill-review-gate.md) wants to verify that a skill's
workflow and output contract are explicit and enforceable.
An orchestrator (legacy-modernization-orchestrator) needs to surface why a
gate is blocked in a uniform shape.
When NOT to Use
Do not trigger when:
The user wants the business artifact itself (inventory, program
analysis, flow, module, spec, review). Route to the dedicated skill.
The user wants SME interviews, capability discovery, or rule mining.
The task is forward SDLC code generation. Use wwa-lab/build-agent-skill.
The task is platform-specific extraction. Use the matching Layer 1 skill.
This skill is a contract layer. If you find yourself producing IBM i
facts, you are in the wrong skill.
Role
You are the contract author / contract checker for one pipeline step.
You must:
restate the step's INPUT, EXECUTION, OUTPUT, and VALIDATION explicitly
distinguish mechanical validation, AI semantic review, and SME / human
approval — they are not interchangeable
produce a compact validation result with one of three statuses
surface unresolved items by category so the next skill (or human) can act
refuse to infer step content the upstream artifact does not contain
You must not:
invent inputs the step does not actually have
mark a step pass because it "looks right" — pass requires the validation
evidence enumerated below
collapse SME approval into AI semantic review
The Step Contract
A Step Contract has four mandatory sections. See
references/step-contract.md for the full
field-level specification, defaults, and worked examples.
1. INPUT
Required fields:
step_id — stable ID for this step instance (STEP-<SLUG>-<NNN> per
docs/id-conventions.md)
skill — the skill or doc that executes the step (e.g.
legacy-ibmi-program-analyzer)
prerequisite_artifacts — list of upstream artifacts with their required
status (e.g. inventory.yaml at approved or
approved_with_non_blocking_tbd)
prerequisite_gates — gates that must already be passing (Evidence
Authorization, Inventory Completeness, Evidence Approval, Forward Handoff)
evidence_scope — the EV-* IDs and OBJ-* IDs that are in scope, plus
authorization fields (sensitivity, source_path_verified,
redaction_required, redaction_status) that must already be resolved
sme_availability — whether an SME owner is required for this step and the
capability slug they own
assumptions_recorded — assumptions the runner is allowed to make
explicitly, never silently
Stop and refuse to execute the step if:
any prerequisite artifact is missing or below the required status
any prerequisite gate is blocked
any evidence has sensitivity: unknown, lacks source-path authorization, or
requires redaction without an approval record
SME is required by the step but not assigned
2. EXECUTION
Required fields:
procedure — pointer to the workflow inside the executing skill
(SKILL.md section or references/ file). The Step Contract does not
re-describe the procedure; it cites it.
inputs_to_outputs_mapping — which input fields drive which output fields
tools_allowed — what the executing skill is allowed to do (read source,
read DDS, call sub-skill, call SME, etc.)
tools_forbidden — what the step must refuse (e.g. generating Java,
inventing object names, reading unauthorized evidence)
decision_points — any branch where the step must choose between
alternatives, plus how that choice is recorded
Execution rules:
The step writes its own output. The Step Contract does not.
The step preserves IDs; it does not renumber on re-execution.
The step records every assumption inline with the artifact it produces.
The step treats rendered previews, browser views, image/PDF previews,
Mermaid previews, spreadsheet previews, and HTML openings as optional review
aids. They must not be automatic completion gates unless the executing skill
explicitly says so or the user asks for visual inspection.
After primary artifacts, validation status, and workflow-state write-back are
recorded, the step stops. It does not keep polling workflow status, re-reading
changed files, or reopening previews. Re-entry is allowed only when a
deterministic validator finding names a concrete artifact to fix.
3. OUTPUT
Required fields:
primary_artifacts — file paths, suggested filenames, and the schema or
template each one must follow
id_namespaces — which ID prefixes the step is allowed to mint
(BEH-*, BR-*, BR-* seeds, STEP-*, TBD-*, etc.) per
docs/id-conventions.md
cross_references — what the output must link back to (every claim links
to one or more EV-*; every BR-* links to BEH-* and EV-*)
status_field — the lifecycle field the artifact carries (draft,
delivery_draft, in_review, approved,
approved_with_non_blocking_tbd, blocked, rejected, retired;
poc_draft is allowed only for internal POC artifacts)
non_outputs — what the step is not allowed to produce (e.g. a flow
analyzer does not produce capability specs)
4. VALIDATION
Validation has three distinct layers, in order. None substitutes for another.
4a. Mechanical Validation
What can be checked by a script, a schema, or a deterministic linter:
required files exist at expected paths
YAML / JSON validates against schemas/spec.schema.yaml (or the relevant
schema)
all referenced IDs resolve (no dangling EV-*, BR-*, OBJ-*)
ID prefixes match docs/id-conventions.md
every claim has at least one linked evidence item
every sensitivity: unknown is resolved and every evidence item has either
source-path authorization or completed required redaction
review status fields are in the allowed enum
Mechanical validation must be reproducible. If it depends on judgment,
move it to AI semantic review.
4b. AI Semantic Review
What an LLM (or careful reviewer) can check by reading the artifact against
the upstream evidence:
the artifact's claims are consistent with linked evidence
knowledge type (observed_behavior / inferred_business_rule /
modernization_decision / unknown_tbd) matches the kind of claim made
evidence strength is not overstated (no weakly_inferred posing as
confirmed_from_code)
no invented IBM i facts (object names, fields, jobs, screens, reports)
no scope creep into a different capability
TBDs are explicit, not hidden inside prose
AI semantic review must call out uncertainty rather than smooth it over.
4c. SME / Human Approval
What only a domain expert can decide:
whether an inferred rule is actually a business rule
whether a behavior the code shows is intentional or a bug
whether a modernization decision is acceptable
whether a TBD is blocking or non-blocking
whether the step's output is safe to promote to approved
SME approval is a control point, not a rubber stamp. The Step Validation
Report must record the SME's name (or role), the date, and the specific
decision against the specific IDs.
Compact Validation Result
Every step run must produce one of three statuses:
Status
Meaning
Downstream Effect
pass
Mechanical validation passes, AI semantic review finds no blocking issues, and (if applicable for this step) SME approval is recorded
The step's output may be consumed by the next step
pass_with_warnings
Mechanical validation passes; AI semantic review found non-blocking issues OR SME approved with non-blocking TBDs
Output may be consumed downstream, but the carried warnings must travel with it
blocked
At least one mechanical, semantic, or SME blocker exists
Output must not be consumed downstream until the blocker is resolved or explicitly waived by an SME
A step is not allowed to self-promote past blocked without resolving or
explicitly waiving the blocker.
pass_with_warnings is for non-blocking items only; if you find yourself
adding a "warning" that is actually critical, the status is blocked.
Internal POC Draft Mode
For internal POC validation, distinguish draft production from
approval/downstream consumption:
Evidence authorization, known sensitivity, and redaction safety remain
non-bypassable hard gates.
Missing completeness evidence (OCR, Markdown, object maps, program analyses,
flow analyses, SME owner, source eligibility, or validation runtime) should
become pass_with_warnings for draft-only artifacts when the user explicitly
requests POC output and every weak claim is labeled low-confidence or TBD-*.
The same missing evidence remains blocked for approval, spec writing, SDD
handoff, production use, or any claim that pretends to be confirmed.
A POC draft must carry an explicit status such as poc_draft, a limitation
note, and approval/spec blockers in the review or traceability artifact.
This mode is a controlled acceleration path, not a waiver of evidence safety or
traceability.
Daily Delivery Mode
For day-to-day BRD delivery, distinguish delivery iteration acceptance from
formal baseline approval:
Evidence authorization, known sensitivity, and redaction safety remain
non-bypassable hard gates.
The runner should continue through context, inventory, program, flow, module,
data-model, and BRD drafting without stopping for separate human approval at
each intermediate artifact when mechanical and semantic validation have no
blocking findings.
A program-flow seed such as Program A -> Program B -> Program C may start
the chain as scope input. It is not proof of parameter semantics, data
mutation, trigger model, commit boundaries, or business meaning; those must be
derived from source/evidence or carried as TBD-*.
Missing supplemental evidence, SME availability windows, or non-critical
analyzer gaps should become warnings, TBD-*, or daily review questions when
they do not alter high-risk business meaning.
Critical contradictions, unresolved source authorization, scope ambiguity,
and high-risk business-rule uncertainty remain blocked until resolved or
explicitly waived by the accountable owner.
A daily BRD must carry mode: daily_delivery,
status: delivery_draft, evidence_mode: daily_delivery, and
review_policy: exception_only.
Final review may record accepted_for_daily_delivery; this is not equivalent
to approved and does not pass spec-writing, SDD handoff, audit-baseline, or
knowledge-publication gates.
This mode reduces approval frequency; it does not weaken traceability or allow a
draft artifact to masquerade as an approved baseline.
Surfacing Unresolved Items
Every Step Validation Report must categorize unresolved items into:
Category
Definition
Typical Resolver
missing_inputs
A required upstream artifact, status, or gate is absent
Run or finish the upstream skill / gate
evidence_gaps
An artifact reference exists but the evidence itself is missing, unreadable, or unauthorized
Source owner provides, authorizes, redacts, or formally waives the artifact
contradictory_evidence
Two or more evidence items disagree about behavior, rule, or field shape
SME decides which evidence holds; record the decision with a DEC-*
sme_questions
A judgment-only question that only a domain expert can answer
SME records the answer in the artifact's review section
downstream_handoff_blockers
An item that does not block this step's draft but will block the next step
Resolve before next step, or mark non-blocking with SME approval and forward
Each item must carry:
a stable ID (TBD-<SLUG>-<NNN>)
the category above
the artifact(s) it points to
the resolver role
whether it is blocking the current step, the next step, or both
Do not mix these categories together in a single bucket — that hides
which role can resolve which item.
approved evidence manifest with source-path authorization or required redaction
inventory.yaml, object-map.md
Yes for inventory completion — sme_review.decision must be approved or approved_with_non_blocking_tbd; no for starting developer-led inventory
Program analysis
legacy-ibmi-program-analyzer
program source; approved inventory required for chain_ready, optional reference packs for field/message/control meanings, optional inventory for standalone_exploratory inspection
program-analysis.md per program
Recommended; required if program affects money, inventory, compliance, or customer status
Flow analysis
legacy-ibmi-flow-analyzer
approved program analyses for chain
flow-<FLOW-SLUG>.md
Recommended; required if cross-program rule emerges
Module analysis
legacy-ibmi-module-analyzer
approved flow analyses + module scope notes
focused module package
Yes — for module-level capability seeds and BR-* seeds
Fill INPUT, EXECUTION, OUTPUT, VALIDATION with the values for that step
instance. Do not invent fields — use references/step-contract.md.
Cite the executing skill's procedure; do not re-describe it.
Record the SME role expected at pass, even if pass is not yet reached.
B. Pre-Execution Check
Confirm every INPUT field has a concrete value.
Score input readiness using
docs/input-readiness-rubric.md:
identify hard blockers, minimum-pass inputs, optional missing inputs, and
quality boosters before execution.
Confirm prerequisite gates are passing (do not assume).
If any INPUT field cannot be resolved, mark the step blocked immediately
and surface the unresolved item under the correct category.
Only when INPUT is at least minimum_pass, hand control to the executing
skill. A minimum_pass score may proceed with warnings; a blocked score
must not.
C. Post-Execution Validation
Run mechanical validation (4a). If anything fails, status is blocked.
Run AI semantic review (4b). Distinguish blocking findings from non-blocking.
Verify SME approval (4c) if the step requires it. SME absence at a step
that needs SME is itself a blocker.
Apply legacy-step-validator to emit a
templates/step-validation-report.md
shaped report with status, findings by layer, and unresolved items by
category.
If pass_with_warnings, the warnings travel with the artifact to the next
step. Do not silently drop them.
D. Reporting to the Orchestrator
When legacy-modernization-orchestrator asks "can this step's output be
consumed downstream?", answer in this exact shape:
Anything more verbose belongs in the full Step Validation Report.
Workflow State Write-Back (history only)
This is a meta / contract skill — it defines the INPUT → EXECUTION →
OUTPUT → VALIDATION contract that other skills follow. It rarely runs
standalone. When it does, it produces a contract-conformance report and
does NOT mutate capabilities[].stage_id or current_focus.
history:-at:<ISO8601>
skill: legacy-step-contract
capability_id: <CAP-* from current_focus, or null>
stage_after: <UNCHANGED stage_id, or null>
artifact: <path to the conformance report, or null>
note: "contract conformance check — <step-id>: pass | warnings | blocked"
Also overwrite project.last_updated_at / project.last_updated_by.
If workflow-state.yaml does not exist, this skill does NOT create it.
Anti-Hallucination Rules
Do not invent IBM i object names, field names, program names, job names, or
capability slugs. The Step Contract carries IDs; it does not mint legacy
facts.
Do not promote a status. Only the executing skill plus its SME may promote
an artifact from draft to in_review to approved.
Do not collapse layers. Mechanical, semantic, and SME are not
interchangeable.
Do not paper over unknown_tbd. If evidence is missing, the answer is a
TBD-* plus a category, not a confident summary.
Do not approve based on confidence. high confidence does not bypass SME
for business-critical claims (see
docs/evidence-and-knowledge-taxonomy.md).
Do not treat SME review as a rubber stamp. SME approval must name the SME,
the date, and the specific IDs approved.
Quality Checklist
Before emitting a Step Contract block, or before reviewing a Step Validation
Report emitted by legacy-step-validator, confirm:
All four sections (INPUT, EXECUTION, OUTPUT, VALIDATION) are present
legacy-modernization-orchestrator consumes the compact validation
result format to decide routing and gate state. The orchestrator does not
re-derive validation; it reads reports emitted by legacy-step-validator.
Layer 1 skills (legacy-ibmi-inventory,
legacy-ibmi-program-analyzer, legacy-ibmi-flow-analyzer,
legacy-ibmi-module-analyzer) and Layer 2 skills
(legacy-spec-writer, future legacy-spec-reviewer) each have their own
output contract; this skill wraps a portable Step Contract around them so
that gates, reviews, and handoffs share one vocabulary.
docs/skill-review-gate.md uses the same vocabulary when scoring a
skill's workflow completeness and output contract.
docs/forward-sdlc-contract.md is itself a Step Contract for the
final crossing into wwa-lab/build-agent-skill.
This skill does not replace any of the above. It gives them a shared shape.
From the repository root, use scripts/sync-skills.sh to create or check
runtime copies. Do not edit adapter copies directly.
No runtime-specific assumptions are baked into this canonical source.
Version History
v0.1.2 (2026-05-29): Renamed scattered-context Step Contract wording so
upstream context notes are not confused with canonical module-analysis
artifacts.
v0.1.3 (2026-05-31): Added the global artifact-preview and
stop-after-writeback completion boundary so steps do not keep processing
after outputs, validation status, and workflow-state write-back are recorded.
v0.1.1 (2026-05-14): Added worked inventory-pass Step Contract and Step
Validation Report examples. Reconciled compact validation result fields
(downstream_next_step, remediation_step) and clarified that
legacy-step-validator emits filled reports. Runtime smoke tests passed in
Codex CLI (gpt-5.4-mini), Claude Code (haiku), and OpenCode
(opencode/minimax-m2.5-free).
v0.1.0 (2026-05-14): Initial Step Contract skill. Formalizes
INPUT → EXECUTION → OUTPUT → VALIDATION across all reverse-chain steps.
Distinguishes mechanical validation, AI semantic review, and SME approval.
Defines compact validation result (pass, pass_with_warnings,
blocked) and the five unresolved-item categories. Portable across Codex,
Claude Code, and OpenCode.
