| name | task-refine |
| description | Refine a draft task into a ready `todo`: assess it for spec completeness, domain-compliance (against its bounded context's ubiquitous language and relationships), and implementation size; interview the human until goal and success criteria are shared; split it if it is too big to land in one go; wire its dependencies; document the interfaces (HTTP/gRPC/protocols/traits/…) it touches and a detailed implementation plan with the files to be touched; and surface decisions, offering ADRs and recording the ones that affect it. Delegates the read-heavy assessment to the task-analyzer subagent. Advances the task(s) draft -> todo (or the original -> split).
|
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [<id>] (default: the lowest-id draft task) |
| model | opus |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Agent, Skill, Bash(bash */skills/task-status/tasks.sh *), Bash(date *) |
Task Refine — Draft → Todo
You turn a draft task into a ready-to-implement todo. A todo is a task whose goal and success criteria you and the human both understand, that is small enough to land in one implementation pass, that fits the domain, and whose dependencies are wired. Getting there is an interview, not a rewrite.
Step 1 — Pick the task
- If an id was given, refine that one.
- Otherwise, run
bash <skills-root>/task-status/tasks.sh by-status draft and take the lowest id. If there are no drafts, say so and stop.
Step 2 — Assess (subagent)
Spawn the task-analyzer subagent (subagent_type: task-analyzer) with the task file path and the project root. It reads the task, the relevant bounded-contexts/<context>.md (and context-map.md for relationships), domain-model.md, and the architecture guidelines (the crisp <architecture-home>/<topic>.md summaries plus the architecture/decisions.md index by default, or under the architecture-path: directory set in CLAUDE.md), then returns a structured assessment:
- Completeness — what the spec is missing (unclear outcome, no success criteria, hidden ambiguity).
- Domain-compliance — does the task fit a bounded context? Does it use that context's ubiquitous language correctly? Does it leak across a boundary in a way the relationship pattern forbids? Is it phrased as an outcome, or has it slipped into premature implementation detail?
- Size — does this look like one implementation pass, or several? If several, a suggested split.
- Dependencies — other tasks (by id) or unbuilt prerequisites this needs.
- Interfaces — the interface surfaces the task touches or must introduce (HTTP/REST endpoints, gRPC services, message topics/event schemas, and in-process contracts: interfaces, traits, protocols), each tagged as defined (new/changed) or consumed (existing).
- Implementation plan — a proposed ordered sequence of steps and the concrete files to be touched (existing vs new), scouted from the codebase.
- Decisions — choices the human must make, and which existing ADRs (from the index) already bear on this task.
The subagent reads the corpus so you don't — you receive only its report.
Step 3 — Interview the human (Socratic, one question at a time)
Work through the assessment with the human, one question at a time, reflecting back what you hear. Drive to:
- A clear outcome and concrete acceptance criteria you could verify.
- Domain fit. If the analyzer flagged a domain conflict, surface it plainly: a task that violates the domain means either the task has the wrong shape / is too implementation-oriented (reshape it) or the map itself is wrong (note it and tell the human to revisit
/domain-model or /context-mapping — do not silently "fix" the task around a broken map).
- The right context for the task's frontmatter.
- The interfaces the task touches. Confirm the analyzer's list with the human and settle, for each, whether the task defines the contract (a new/changed endpoint, service, topic, event schema, interface/trait/protocol) or merely consumes an existing one. Note the contract at the granularity known now — route + method + shape, service + method, topic + payload, trait/protocol + signatures — without designing the implementation. If the task defines a contract that crosses a bounded-context boundary, it is often the published language of that relationship; if that surfaces a real decision, treat it under Step 5 (offer an ADR).
- The implementation plan. Walk the analyzer's proposed steps and file list with the human, correct anything its scout got wrong (files that don't exist, a seam it missed), and settle on an ordered plan the implementer can start from. Keep it a plan — steps and files, not code. If refining the plan reveals the task is bigger than one pass after all, go back to Step 4 and split.
Capture what you scope out. Refinement narrows: to make the task land in one pass you will often cut functionality out of it — an edge case deferred, a follow-on capability pushed to "later", a nice-to-have set aside. Anything cut this way must not evaporate. For each piece of scoped-out functionality, create a new draft task so it stays on the backlog: mint an id (tasks.sh next-id, one at a time) and write tasks/NNNN-slug.md in status: draft with a short body capturing the deferred outcome (a later /task-refine pass will flesh it out). Do not interview on these drafts now — a draft is a placeholder, not a ready task. This is different from a split (Step 4): a split divides all of an oversized task's work among todo children and tombstones the original; scoping-out keeps this task and merely spins off the bits you deliberately dropped as fresh drafts. If the human isn't sure whether a cut piece is worth keeping, ask — but default to capturing it.
Step 4 — Split if too big
If the task can't land in one implementation pass, propose a split and get the human's agreement on the pieces. When you present the proposed pieces, name each by its outcome / slug (or "child 1 / child 2") — never as 0007a / 0007b or any suffix of the original id. That suffix wrongly implies the original id survives the split; it does not (see below). The a/b labels also tend to leak straight into the minted filenames, so keep them out of the conversation entirely.
Never derive child ids by suffixing the original (no 0007a / 0007b, no 0007-1). A split produces genuinely new, top-level tasks: the original becomes an inert split tombstone and each child is minted a fresh sequential id via tasks.sh next-id. This is not a style preference: a file named 0007a-slug.md does not match the loader's NNNN-slug.md glob, so it is invisible to every tasks.sh command — it would never schedule, never count, never check. (The check-dag you run at the end of this step flags any such malformed filename, but the point is not to create one.) Then, as two passes:
Pass A — create children and tombstone the original.
- For each child, mint an id (
tasks.sh next-id, one at a time) and write a new tasks/NNNN-slug.md in status: todo with its own outcome/criteria and any dependency ordering among the children.
- Rewrite the original task to a tombstone: set
status: split and split_into: ["NNNN", ...] listing the children; leave its body as the record of what it was. A tombstone is inert — it schedules nothing.
Pass B — rewire dependents. Run
bash <skills-root>/task-status/tasks.sh dependents <original-id> to find every task that had depends_on: [<original>]. For each, with the human decide which child (or children) it should now depend on — do not blindly repoint to all children — and edit its depends_on accordingly. Leaving a dependent pointing at the split tombstone is a bug (check-dag will flag it as dangling).
Step 5 — Decisions & ADRs
For each genuine decision surfaced: if it is significant and expensive to reverse, offer to record it via Skill(adr) (never auto-create). For every ADR — newly recorded or pre-existing — that constrains the task, add its number to the task's related_adrs frontmatter so the implementer inherits it. Add any strategic docs the implementer needs (e.g. the context file) to related_documents.
Step 6 — Finalize to todo
For each resulting task (the single refined task, or each split child), set status: todo, context: <slug>, and wire depends_on to the ids the interview identified. The task body must have exactly these sections, in this order and at these heading levels:
## Outcome — what is true when the task is done (the shared goal).
### Why this matters — the value the outcome delivers.### Acceptance criteria — concrete, verifiable checks.
## Implementation plan — ordered steps + files to be touched (see below).
### Interfaces — the interface surfaces touched (see below).
## Notes — what the refinement settled (decisions, scoped-out drafts, domain fit, anything the implementer should know).## Closing — the post-implementation record; leave its subsections as placeholders — /task-cycle fills them at implementation.
### Manual testing — placeholder; /task-cycle fills it.### Deviations from plan — placeholder; /task-cycle fills it.
Fill sections 1–3 and their subsections; leave ## Closing and its subsections as their placeholders.
In ### Interfaces, record the interface surfaces the task touches, one per line, each tagged define or consume — e.g. - define — POST /orders (HTTP): {…} → 201, - define — trait OrderRepository: save, findById, - consume — gRPC PaymentService.Authorize. This is the contract the implementer must honor, not the implementation. If the task genuinely touches no interface, write - None. so the absence is explicit rather than an oversight.
In ## Implementation plan, record the ordered steps the implementer will follow (TDD-friendly: the test to write, then the change to make it pass) and a Files list naming each file to be touched with its path and a phrase on the change, marking new files as such — e.g. - src/orders/api.rs (edit) — add POST /orders handler, - src/orders/repository.rs (new) — OrderRepository trait + impl. This is the plan settled in the interview, kept at plan granularity — enough for /task-cycle to start without re-deriving the layout, not line-level code. Note any file the analyzer marked tentative so the implementer confirms it.
Then guard the graph: run bash <skills-root>/task-status/tasks.sh check-dag. If it reports a cycle or a dangling reference, you introduced it — fix the offending depends_on before finishing. Do not leave the backlog with a failing check-dag.
When you are done
Report: which task(s) are now todo, any tombstoned split, any new draft tasks you spun off for scoped-out functionality, the dependencies wired, and any ADRs recorded or attached. If drafts remain, mention that /task-refine can take the next one. Do not implement anything — /task-cycle does that.
