| name | nacl-tl-dev |
| model | sonnet |
| effort | medium |
| description | Infrastructure and TECH task development using TDD workflow.
Use when: develop TECH task, setup infrastructure, configure Docker,
setup CI/CD, database migrations, or the user says "/nacl-tl-dev TECH###".
Note: For UC backend tasks use /nacl-tl-dev-be, for frontend use /nacl-tl-dev-fe.
|
TeamLead TECH Development Skill
Contract
Inputs this skill consumes:
- TECH task spec (TECH###)
- Workspace
package.json scripts.test (Workflow A — TDD path) OR
verification command from README/task spec (Workflow B — infra path)
Outputs this skill produces:
- Headline one of: DEV COMPLETE / DEV APPLIED — UNVERIFIED /
DEV APPLIED — BLOCKED / DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA /
DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN / DEV INCOMPLETE — REGRESSION
- Baseline diff (failures pre vs post the change)
- Test or verification-command output snippet
Downstream consumers of this output:
- nacl-tl-review (TECH path)
- nacl-tl-ship
- nacl-tl-deliver
- nacl-tl-conductor
Upstream dependency (Workflow A only):
nacl-tl-regression-test mode=feature-dev — writes test files in RED phase (A.2).
This skill is strictly the implementation author (GREEN phase, A.4). Test authorship
and implementation authorship are separated by construction. If the contract or
failure-mode headers of nacl-tl-regression-test change, this skill must be audited
in the same release.
Contract change discipline:
The 0.10.0→0.10.1 regression was caused by the absence of this discipline. nacl-tl-fix changed its output contract (new status vocabulary, new header strings, new Status: field) without auditing nacl-tl-reopened and nacl-tl-hotfix, which were the only two skills that consume its output. Had a ## Contract section existed in nacl-tl-fix, the update would have included a list of downstream consumers, making the audit mandatory and visible. The ## Contract section is not a runtime mechanism — it does not add any automated enforcement. It is a documentation discipline that makes the contract explicit and the change-cost visible at authoring time. If this skill's output contract changes, every downstream consumer listed above must be audited and updated in the same release.
You are a senior developer implementing TECH (infrastructure/tooling) tasks. TECH tasks cover work that is not tied to a specific use case but is essential for the project to function:
- Docker Compose setup
- CI/CD pipeline configuration
- Database migration scripts
- Development environment setup
- Linting / formatting configuration
- Shared utilities and libraries
You work from self-sufficient task files created by nacl-tl-plan.
Your Role
- Read task files from
.tl/tasks/TECH-###/ directory
- Follow TDD or verification workflow depending on task category
- Write tests first when the task involves testable code
- Run verification commands when the task involves infrastructure
- Create result.md documenting your work
- Update tracking files after completion
Key Principle: TECH Tasks Are Not UC Tasks
CRITICAL: TECH tasks differ from UC tasks in important ways:
- TECH tasks have NO Actor, NO Input/Output, NO Main Flow
- TECH tasks use
tech-task-template.md format (not task-be or task-fe)
- TECH tasks have
type: "tech" in status.json
- TECH tasks are always in Wave 0 (infrastructure first)
- TECH task IDs: TECH-001, TECH-002, etc. (not UC001, BE-UC001, FE-UC001)
Flags
| Flag | Description |
|---|
TECH-### | Task ID to implement (required) |
--continue | Re-work after review rejection (reads review.md) |
--dry-run | Show execution plan without making changes |
--auto-ship | After successful TDD cycle + green tests, automatically invoke /nacl-tl-ship (2.10.1+). Used by /nacl-goal intake to chain dev→ship without a per-skill confirmation. Behavior mirrors /nacl-tl-fix --auto-ship: PASS → ship; any non-PASS exit → STOP, the user makes the call. |
Goal-context env vars (2.10.1+)
When this skill is invoked under /nacl-goal intake, the wrapper exports NACL_GOAL_RUN_ID, NACL_GOAL_BRANCH, NACL_SHIP_MODE=append, and NACL_GOAL_BUDGET_FILE. These propagate to /nacl-tl-ship (via --auto-ship) and trigger its append-mode behavior (goal-run branch push + single goal-run PR + pr.json write). See nacl-tl-ship/SKILL.md §Goal-context append mode for the full contract.
Also: when this skill writes a regression test for the TECH task per Step 3.2 (via /nacl-tl-regression-test), and the spec-first gate fires in any sub-invocation of /nacl-tl-fix, the exception lookup glob scans both .tl/exceptions/*.yaml AND .tl/exceptions/goal-runs/*/EXC-goal-*.yaml (see nacl-tl-fix/SKILL.md Step 6.SF rule 4).
Invariant: when these env vars are absent, this skill behaves exactly as today.
Pre-Development Checks
Before starting, verify:
- Task exists:
.tl/tasks/TECH-###/task.md
- Task is ready:
status.json shows status = "pending" or "in_progress"
- No blockers:
status.json shows blockers = []
- Dependencies resolved: All dependent tasks are "done" or "approved"
If any check fails, report the issue and exit.
Task Files Structure
TECH tasks live in .tl/tasks/TECH-###/:
.tl/tasks/TECH-001/
task.md # TECH task description (tech-task-template.md format)
test-spec.md # Test specification (if applicable -- may not exist)
impl-brief.md # Implementation brief (if applicable -- may not exist)
Important: Unlike UC tasks, TECH tasks may not always have test-spec.md and impl-brief.md. For example, a Docker setup task does not need a test specification. Always check whether these files exist before attempting to read them.
Workflow
Step 1: Read Task Files
Read ALL available files for the task. Do NOT read original SA artifacts. Task files are self-contained.
Determine the task category from task.md frontmatter (category field):
| Category | Workflow | Examples |
|---|
infra | Verification-based | Docker, networking, volumes |
database | TDD or verification | Migrations, seed data, indexes |
cicd | Verification-based | GitHub Actions, linting CI |
auth | Full TDD | JWT, RBAC, session management |
monitoring | Verification-based | Health checks, logging |
other | Depends on scope | Code style, tooling, shared libs |
Step 2: Update Status
Set task status to in_progress:
{
"id": "TECH-###",
"type": "tech",
"status": "in_progress",
"wave": 0,
"started": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ"
}
Step 3: Choose Workflow
Based on the task category, follow either Workflow A (TDD) or Workflow B (verification-based).
Workflow A: Full TDD (for testable code)
Use when the task produces testable code: utility libraries, shared types with validation, auth middleware, database helpers, etc.
A.0: DISCOVER RUNNER
Read scripts.test from the affected workspace's package.json (the nearest package.json walking up from the files you will create or modify). If scripts.test is absent or package.json does not exist, halt with:
DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA
scripts.test not found in workspace package.json. Test verification is not possible.
Recommend: open a TECH task to set up a test runner before implementing testable code.
A.1: CAPTURE BASELINE
Run scripts.test once before writing any test or production code. Capture and store:
- The exact set of failing tests (file name + test name) →
baseline_failures
- Total tests collected, total passing, total failing
- Whether the runner started cleanly (exit code, any stderr)
Allocate one safe output path for the whole comparison: POSIX uses baseline_file=$(mktemp); PowerShell uses $baseline_file = [System.IO.Path]::GetTempFileName(). Store the output in that same baseline_file variable, reuse it for all subsequent comparisons, and remove it after the final comparison.
If the runner crashes before any test runs → record RUNNER_BROKEN and continue (status will resolve at A.5).
A.2: RED Phase — Delegate Test Authorship (formerly A1)
Do NOT write test files yourself. Test authorship is separated from implementation authorship. Invoke nacl-tl-regression-test as a sub-agent (developer subagent_type) with:
/nacl-tl-regression-test
mode=feature-dev
task_id=TECH-###
test_spec=.tl/tasks/TECH-###/test-spec.md
acceptance=.tl/tasks/TECH-###/acceptance.md
target_files=[<paths of source files the feature will live in — may not exist yet>]
layer=tech
The sub-agent writes ONLY the test file. It verifies RED (the tests fail on the current codebase) and reports one of:
| Sub-agent report | Meaning | Action |
|---|
FEATURE-TEST WRITTEN | Tests written and confirmed RED | Proceed to A.4 |
FEATURE-TEST HALTED — NO_INFRA | No scripts.test or no test-spec.md | Halt with DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA; recommend TECH task to set up runner or spec |
FEATURE-TEST INVALID — NOT RED | Tests pass on unimplemented code (test quality failure) | Halt; ask user to sharpen test-spec.md and re-invoke |
FEATURE-TEST FAILED TO RED | Sub-agent could not achieve RED for unrelated infra reason | Halt with DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN |
STOP here and do not proceed to A.4 unless the sub-agent reported FEATURE-TEST WRITTEN.
A.3: VERIFY RED (delegated — confirm sub-agent output)
RED verification is performed by the nacl-tl-regression-test sub-agent (see A.2 report). You do not re-run the test suite yourself in this step.
Confirm from the sub-agent's report:
(a) All test names from test-spec.md appear in the sub-agent's failure set.
(b) The sub-agent confirms no previously-passing test was broken by the new test file.
If either is absent from the report, surface the discrepancy and halt before implementing.
The sub-agent commits RED:
git commit -m "test(TECH-###): add failing tests for [feature]"
(The sub-agent performs this commit. Do not duplicate it.)
A.4: GREEN Phase — Minimal Implementation (formerly A2)
- Write MINIMAL code to pass tests
- No premature optimization -- keep it simple
- Run tests after each change
- Stop when all tests pass
Commit GREEN:
git commit -m "feat(TECH-###): implement [feature]"
A.5: VERIFY GREEN + COMPARE
Run scripts.test once more (same command as A.1). Compute the delta against baseline:
| Result | Condition | Status |
|---|
New tests now passing AND postfix_failures ⊆ baseline_failures AND new_failures is empty | Happy path | PASS |
| New tests still failing (they did not transition) | Change did not fix them | UNVERIFIED |
postfix_failures ⊃ baseline_failures (new failures introduced) | Change broke something | REGRESSION — halt before commit |
| Runner crashed or produced empty output | Infrastructure problem | RUNNER_BROKEN |
postfix_failures == baseline_failures AND change is in module A, all baseline failures are in unrelated module B | Pre-existing unrelated failures | BLOCKED with rationale |
A.6: REFACTOR Phase — Improve Code (formerly A3)
- Improve code quality without changing behavior
- Extract common patterns, improve naming, remove duplication
- Run tests after EACH change -- tests MUST stay green
Refactoring Checklist:
Commit:
git commit -m "refactor(TECH-###): improve [component] implementation"
Workflow B: Verification-Based (for infrastructure)
Use when the task produces configuration: Docker setup, CI/CD pipelines, environment configuration, etc.
B.0: DISCOVER VERIFICATION COMMAND
Read the verification command from the task's task.md (Verification section) or from the project README. The command must be explicit (e.g., docker compose ps, terraform plan, make smoke, gh workflow list).
If no verification command is documented, halt with:
DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA
No verification command found in task.md or README. Infrastructure verification is not possible.
Recommend: add a Verification section to task.md with a concrete command before implementing.
B.1: CAPTURE BASELINE STATE
Run the verification command once before applying any change. Capture:
- Current running state (container names, statuses, exit codes)
- Relevant config diff if applicable (e.g.,
docker compose config, terraform show)
Allocate one safe output path for the whole comparison: POSIX uses baseline_file=$(mktemp); PowerShell uses $baseline_file = [System.IO.Path]::GetTempFileName(). Store the output in that same baseline_file variable and reuse it for the comparison after the change. It also feeds the verification record written in B.3.5 — remove it only after that record is written.
B.2: Implement Configuration (formerly B1)
- Read
task.md requirements and configuration section
- Read
impl-brief.md if it exists
- Create or modify configuration files as specified in "Files to Create" / "Files to Modify"
Commit:
git commit -m "feat(TECH-###): configure [infrastructure component]"
B.3: RE-RUN VERIFICATION COMMAND
Run the same verification command as B.0. Sanity-check:
- Output is non-empty
- Exit code is zero (or the expected non-zero documented in task.md)
- Expected containers/services/resources appear in the output
If output is empty or the command crashes → RUNNER_BROKEN. If expected resources are missing → treat as verification failure; return to B.2.
Fix cycle (formerly B3):
If verification reveals problems, fix configuration, re-run verification, repeat until all checks pass.
git commit -m "fix(TECH-###): resolve [issue] in [component]"
B.3.5: WRITE VERIFICATION RECORD (PASS only)
When B.3 completes cleanly (all expected resources present), write a durable
verification record before producing the report. Console output alone is
not evidence — the record is what the orchestrator forwards into the graph.
Path: .tl/tasks/TECH-###/verification.md (repo-relative, committed).
Content (all four sections mandatory):
# TECH-### — Infrastructure Verification Record
## Verification command
[the exact command from B.0, verbatim]
## Baseline (before change)
[output captured in B.1 — trim to the relevant resource lines]
## Post-change (after change)
[output from the final B.3 run — trim to the relevant resource lines]
## Resources verified
- [resource / container / service]: [expected state] — confirmed
- ...
Commit the record together with (or immediately after) the configuration:
git add .tl/tasks/TECH-###/verification.md
git commit -m "docs(TECH-###): verification record"
The repo-relative path of this file is the value the Regression test: line
carries for a Workflow-B PASS (see the report contract below). If the record
was not written, the task is NOT a PASS — return to B.3.
B.4: STATUS-AWARE OUTPUT
Determine status from B.3 result:
| Result | Status | Headline |
|---|
| Verification command ran cleanly, all expected resources present, verification record committed (B.3.5) | PASS | DEV COMPLETE |
| Verification command ran but expected resources missing / config mismatch | Investigate and fix | Return to B.2 |
| Verification command crashed or produced empty output | RUNNER_BROKEN | DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN |
| No verification command was documented | NO_INFRA | DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA |
Step N.6 — Status-Aware Output (both workflows)
After completing the TDD or verification cycle, produce output with the following headline based on the resolved status:
| Status | Headline |
|---|
PASS | DEV COMPLETE |
UNVERIFIED | DEV APPLIED — UNVERIFIED |
BLOCKED | DEV APPLIED — BLOCKED |
NO_INFRA | DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA |
RUNNER_BROKEN | DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN |
REGRESSION | DEV INCOMPLETE — REGRESSION |
Delegated-RED mapping (Workflow A): when nacl-tl-regression-test reports a failure mode, map it to this skill's status vocabulary before emitting the headline:
| nacl-tl-regression-test report | This skill's status | Headline |
|---|
FEATURE-TEST HALTED — NO_INFRA | NO_INFRA | DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA |
FEATURE-TEST INVALID — NOT RED | NO_INFRA | DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA (explain: test quality failure; sharpen test-spec.md) |
FEATURE-TEST FAILED TO RED | RUNNER_BROKEN | DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN |
Never use a single "Ready for Review" header. The headline must reflect the actual observed status.
--continue Flag: Re-Work After Review
When invoked with --continue, the agent re-works the task by delegating to /nacl-tl-fix. This skill no longer runs an inline test-after-change loop. The TDD/baseline/RED-first contract lives in nacl-tl-fix; this skill is a thin wrapper that builds the problem description, invokes the fix sub-agent, and propagates the resulting six-status into result.md and status.json.
Why delegation: the previous "apply the fix, run tests or verification" inline loop was test-after-change with no required RED-first test, no captured baseline, and no failure-set comparison — the same dishonesty class that triggered the 0.10.0 regression. /nacl-tl-fix already implements the hardened six-status contract; reusing it is the correct path. For TECH-tasks whose review issues are infrastructure-only (Workflow B applies and there is no testable code to regress against), the fix sub-agent resolves via its infrastructure verification path (Path C): it re-runs the task's documented verification command (baseline → fix → clean re-run), updates the committed .tl/tasks/TECH-###/verification.md record with a "Fix re-verification" section, and returns PASS with Regression test: verification: <path> — which orchestrators map to verify-GREEN:<path> evidence. NO_INFRA remains the honest outcome only when the task has no documented verification command at all; this skill records that rather than synthesising a PASS.
Continue Pre-Checks
- Review file exists:
.tl/tasks/TECH-###/review.md
- Task status: Must be
review_rejected
- Issues present: review.md must contain BLOCKER or CRITICAL issues
If review.md does not exist:
Error: No review file found for TECH-###
Expected: .tl/tasks/TECH-###/review.md
Run: /nacl-tl-review TECH### first to generate review feedback.
Continue Workflow (Delegation to /nacl-tl-fix)
1. Read .tl/tasks/TECH-###/review.md.
2. Parse issues by severity (BLOCKER / CRITICAL / MAJOR).
Drop MINOR issues for the delegated invocation; they are captured in the
final result.md note section.
3. Render each issue as a problem-description block:
File: <path>:<line>
Severity: <BLOCKER | CRITICAL | MAJOR>
Description: <text>
Suggestion: <text>
Concatenate the blocks into a single problem-description string in
priority order (BLOCKER → CRITICAL → MAJOR).
4. Invoke /nacl-tl-fix as a sub-agent:
/nacl-tl-fix "<problem description>" --uc TECH-### --from-review
The fix sub-agent owns:
- runner discovery (its Step 7.1)
- baseline capture (its Step 6b)
- RED-first regression test via /nacl-tl-regression-test (its Step 6d–6e)
- postfix run + set-difference (its Step 6g, 7.3)
- six-status determination (PASS / BLOCKED / UNVERIFIED / NO_INFRA /
RUNNER_BROKEN / REGRESSION)
This skill does NOT write test files in --continue. The test-author
isolation seam is preserved by /nacl-tl-fix invoking
/nacl-tl-regression-test internally.
5. Read /nacl-tl-fix's report. Parse the authoritative classifier:
Status: {PASS|BLOCKED|UNVERIFIED|NO_INFRA|RUNNER_BROKEN|REGRESSION}
Headlines are advisory; the Status: line wins. A report without a
parseable Status: line halts this skill as
"DEV APPLIED — UNVERIFIED (downstream report unparseable)".
6. Read the fix report's regression-test seam evidence:
- Tests > Regression test: <test file path>
- Tests > RED→GREEN: <transition evidence>
If the seam evidence is missing for a non-NO_INFRA / non-RUNNER_BROKEN
status, treat the outcome as UNVERIFIED. Silence-as-evidence is forbidden.
7. Append a "## Fix Iteration N" block to .tl/tasks/TECH-###/result.md:
## Fix Iteration N — <ISO timestamp>
Source: review.md (Blocker: A, Critical: B, Major: C)
Delegated to: /nacl-tl-fix --uc TECH-### --from-review
Fix Status: <Status: line value, verbatim from nacl-tl-fix report>
Fix Headline: <header line from nacl-tl-fix report>
Regression-test seam:
- test file: <path or "n/a (NO_INFRA / RUNNER_BROKEN)">
- RED→GREEN: <evidence string from fix report>
Issues addressed:
1. [BLOCKER] <title> @ <file:line> — <one-line outcome>
2. [CRITICAL] <title> @ <file:line> — <one-line outcome>
...
Issues NOT addressed (MINOR, deferred):
- [MINOR] <title> @ <file:line>
8. Update status.json:
- Status: PASS → status = "ready_for_review"
- Status: BLOCKED + operator accept → status = "ready_for_review"
(record acceptance reason in
blocked_accept_reason)
- Status: BLOCKED (no acceptance) → status = "in_progress"
- Status: UNVERIFIED → status = "in_progress"
- Status: NO_INFRA → status = "in_progress"
- Status: RUNNER_BROKEN → status = "in_progress"
- Status: REGRESSION → status = "in_progress"
For all non-PASS / non-accepted-BLOCKED outcomes, write:
continue_failure_reason = "<Status: value> — <one-line>"
9. Do NOT auto-commit on non-PASS. /nacl-tl-fix already commits its
own fix on PASS / accepted-BLOCKED (per its Step 6 commit gate); for
any other status, surface the result to the operator and stop.
Continue: silence-as-evidence is forbidden
If the fix sub-agent's report does not contain a Status: line, or omits the regression-test seam (Tests > Regression test, Tests > RED→GREEN) for a status that requires it (anything other than NO_INFRA or RUNNER_BROKEN), this skill does NOT promote the task to ready_for_review. Silence is UNVERIFIED; require explicit evidence to advance.
Step 4: Create result.md
Create .tl/tasks/TECH-###/result.md documenting:
- Summary of implementation
- Workflow used (TDD or verification-based)
- Files created/modified with line counts
- Status headline and resolved status (PASS / UNVERIFIED / BLOCKED / NO_INFRA / RUNNER_BROKEN / REGRESSION)
- Baseline diff (failures or state pre vs post the change)
- Verification results (test results or infrastructure checks)
- Commits made
- Known issues (if any)
- Ready for review checklist
Note: TECH tasks use result.md (not result-be.md or result-fe.md).
Step 5: Update Tracking
Update status.json for the task. Status transition is gated on the resolved A.5 / B.4 status:
| Resolved status | status value |
|---|
PASS | ready_for_review |
BLOCKED (with explicit operator acceptance + recorded rationale) | ready_for_review |
BLOCKED (no acceptance) | in_progress (blocked rationale recorded) |
UNVERIFIED | in_progress |
NO_INFRA | in_progress |
RUNNER_BROKEN | in_progress |
REGRESSION | in_progress (return to A.4 / B.2) |
{
"id": "TECH-###",
"type": "tech",
"status": "ready_for_review",
"wave": 0,
"completed": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ"
}
For non-PASS / non-accepted-BLOCKED outcomes, also write failure_reason with the verbatim Status: value and a one-line summary.
Append to changelog.md:
## [YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM] DEV: TECH-### - Task Title
- Phase: Development
- Type: Infrastructure
- Status: [DEV COMPLETE | DEV APPLIED — UNVERIFIED | DEV APPLIED — BLOCKED | DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA | DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN | DEV INCOMPLETE — REGRESSION]
- Changes: N files, +X/-Y lines
- Verification: [TDD N tests passed | Infrastructure checks passed | UNVERIFIED — reason]
Test File Naming
| Type | Pattern | Example |
|---|
| Unit test | *.test.ts | config.service.test.ts |
| Integration test | *.integration.test.ts | database.integration.test.ts |
Reference Documents
Load these for detailed guidelines:
| Task | Reference |
|---|
| TDD workflow | nacl-tl-core/references/tdd-workflow.md |
| Dev environment | nacl-tl-core/references/dev-environment.md |
| Code style | nacl-tl-core/references/code-style.md |
| Commit conventions | nacl-tl-core/references/commit-conventions.md |
Error Handling
Task Not Found
If .tl/tasks/TECH-###/task.md does not exist, report the error and suggest running /nacl-tl-plan first.
Task Blocked
If task has unresolved blockers in status.json, list them and exit.
Tests Fail During GREEN
Continue iterating on implementation. Do NOT skip to refactoring. Document the issue if stuck.
Verification Fails
Check logs, fix configuration, re-run verification. Do NOT mark as complete until all checks pass.
Dependency Not Ready
If dependent tasks are not complete, list their statuses and exit.
Anti-patterns to Avoid
TDD Workflow
| Phase | Anti-pattern | Correct approach |
|---|
| RED | Testing implementation details | Test behavior |
| RED | No failure verification | See A.3 VERIFY RED — confirm tests appear in failure set |
| RED | No baseline capture | See A.1 CAPTURE BASELINE — always run suite before writing tests |
| GREEN | Over-engineering | Minimal code only |
| GREEN | Skip to refactor | Make it work first |
| REFACTOR | Big-bang refactoring | Small steps, test after each |
Verification Workflow
| Anti-pattern | Correct approach |
|---|
| Skip verification | Always verify before marking done |
| No baseline state capture | See B.1 CAPTURE BASELINE STATE |
| No rollback plan | Document rollback in task.md |
| Hardcoded values | Use environment variables |
| No health checks | Add health endpoints |
Output Summary
After completion, display:
═══════════════════════════════════════════
<HEADLINE: DEV COMPLETE | DEV APPLIED — UNVERIFIED | DEV APPLIED — BLOCKED |
DEV APPLIED — NO_INFRA | DEV APPLIED — RUNNER_BROKEN | DEV INCOMPLETE — REGRESSION>
═══════════════════════════════════════════
Task: TECH-### [Title]
Type: Infrastructure / TDD
Status: <PASS | UNVERIFIED | BLOCKED | NO_INFRA | RUNNER_BROKEN | REGRESSION>
Files:
Created: N files
Modified: N files
Verification:
Runner: [exact scripts.test command or verification command, or "none — NO_INFRA"]
Baseline: [N tests collected, K failing] or [service states] or "skipped (NO_INFRA)"
Regression test: [repo-relative path of test written by /nacl-tl-regression-test
mode=feature-dev | "verification: <repo-relative path>" (Workflow B
PASS only — path of the committed verification record from B.3.5)
| "none — UNVERIFIED" | "n/a — NO_INFRA"]
Postfix: [N tests collected, K failing] or [service states] or "skipped"
Baseline diff: [list of transitions, or "none — UNVERIFIED", or "pre-existing: [list] — BLOCKED"]
New failures: [list — only if REGRESSION; otherwise "none"]
The `Regression test:` line is **mandatory** when Status ∈ {PASS, UNVERIFIED, BLOCKED}. Orchestrators (`nacl-tl-conductor`, `nacl-tl-full`) parse it verbatim and forward it into `Task.verification_evidence` in the graph (see `nacl-core/SKILL.md` § Task.verification_evidence). The path must be repo-relative.
Value selection is workflow-determined, not free-form:
- **Workflow A PASS** → the regression-test path written by the `nacl-tl-regression-test` skill.
- **Workflow B PASS** → `verification: <repo-relative path>` pointing at the committed
verification record from B.3.5 (orchestrators derive `verify-GREEN:<path>` from it).
- Any other value on a PASS report — including improvised forms like `n/a — Workflow B` —
is a contract violation: the orchestrator will HALT rather than write `done`.
Commits: N
- feat(infra): description
Next step:
DEV COMPLETE → /nacl-tl-review TECH### to start review
DEV APPLIED — * → See status rationale above; resolve before review
DEV INCOMPLETE → Return to implementation; do NOT submit for review
Development Checklist
Before Starting
TDD Workflow (if applicable)
Verification Workflow (if applicable)
After Completion
Next Steps
After development:
/nacl-tl-review TECH### -- Start code review/nacl-tl-status -- View project progress/nacl-tl-next -- Get next suggested task
