Research the codebase and create an implementation plan with architecture notes, design document, and track decomposition. Use when starting a new feature or large change.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Research the codebase and create an implementation plan with architecture notes, design document, and track decomposition. Use when starting a new feature or large change.
argument-hint
[plan-directory-name]
user-invocable
true
Reading workflow files (TOC protocol)
When you Read any file under .claude/workflow/ or .claude/skills/, follow the protocol in conventions.md §1.8:
Read the TOC region: from <!--Document index start--> to <!--Document index end--> (read to the closing delimiter, not a fixed line count). If the file has no TOC region (a file whose only ## heading is this bootstrap block carries none, per §1.8(d)), read the file in full.
Match TOC rows where Roles contains any of your roles (or your role is any, or the row's Roles is any) AND Phases contains any of your phases (or your phase is any, or the row's Phases is any).
Use Read(offset, limit) to read only matched sections; if no row matches your role/phase, the file holds nothing for you — do not read further.
Your role: planner.
Your phase: determined by the auto-resume State in workflow.md § Startup Protocol.
Inline refs you find inside workflow files carry the same suffix; apply file-level filtering before opening: a ref matches when any of your roles is in its roles and any of your phases is in its phases, your own on either axis matches every ref on that axis, and a ref whose own roles or phases is matches you. Backtick-wrapped refs carry no suffix; open or skip them at your discretion.
name:roles:phases
any
any
Read and follow the workflow for Phase 0 (Research) and Phase 1 (Planning).
House style for chat-scale prose. User-facing prose produced from this file (status updates, escalation prompts, replanning summaries, review-mode loop turns, handoff notes, whichever apply) follows the AI-tell subset of house-style.md: ## Banned sentence patterns, ## Banned analysis patterns, ## Orientation, and ## Plain language. Structural rules (§ BLUF lead, § Structural rules for the ≤200-word section cap, § Document-shape rules (design / ADR-specific)) do not apply to chat-scale prose. See conventions.md:planner:0,1 §1.5 for the workflow-level anchor and tier mapping.
Stamp discipline. Every _workflow/** artifact this SKILL creates carries a line-1 <!-- workflow-sha: <40-char SHA> --> stamp written at creation. Direct-mutation kinds applied later by edit-design (content-edit, section-add, section-remove, section-rename, section-move, structural-rewrite, mechanics-edit, design-sync) leave the stamp untouched and preserve its line-1 position; only artifact creation, migration replay, and no-drift normalization write the stamp. The format definition, parser idioms, and the paired SHA-computation idiom this SKILL copies into its planning-transition step are anchored in conventions.md:planner:1 §1.6. Read that section for the single source of truth.
Step 1 — Read workflow documents.
Read these in order before doing anything else (do NOT ask the user anything yet):
.claude/workflow/conventions.md — shared formats,
glossary (including the complexity axes and design gate terms),
plan file structure, the §1.2Per-axis artifact set, scope
indicators, review iteration protocol
.claude/workflow/research.md — Phase 0 instructions:
interactive research, code exploration, internet research, the
research log (the durable Phase-0/1 decision ledger Phase 0 writes),
transition rules
Do NOT read .claude/workflow/planning.md or
.claude/workflow/design-document-rules.md yet — they are only needed when
the user asks to create the plan (Step 4). Load them on demand at that point.
Resolve <dir-name>. All subsequent steps reference
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/; resolve the placeholder once before
running any command that uses it. If "$ARGUMENTS" is non-empty, use
it. Otherwise, default to $(git branch --show-current).
Step 1.5 — Workflow drift check (mandatory, before any other on-disk work).
Ordering: this step depends on the <dir-name> resolver above being complete and Step 1b's mkdir not yet having run — see the trailing paragraph below for the gate's Skip-#1 rationale.
Invoke the drift gate defined in
workflow-drift-check.md:planner:1.
The gate is shared with /execute-tracks; its intro names both callers
and its body is caller-symmetric, so this step is a thin orchestration
handoff that defers to the gate rather than restating its detection. Run
the gate's § Detection against the resolved <dir-name> from the
previous block. Detection now runs the two-phase drift walk inside
.claude/scripts/workflow-startup-precheck.sh under --mode full and
reads the resulting drift JSON object; the script resolves the plan
dir from the active branch, so no inline PLAN_DIR= bash line runs
here. Follow its § Skip conditions, § No-drift normalization, and
§ Resolutions flow verbatim.
The three-resolution prompt fires only when drift surfaces and no
skip condition matched. The user picks one:
Migrate now — print Run /migrate-workflow from this worktree, then re-invoke /create-plan afterward. (the single instruction
line per workflow-drift-check.md § Migrate now, with the
/create-plan re-invocation hint appended), then end the session.
Exit immediately; no on-disk work has run yet (Step 1b's mkdir,
Step 2's aim prompt, and Step 5's commit and push are all
downstream of Step 1.5).
Defer — continue this session. Record the deferred-drift count
via the TaskCreate todo described in workflow-drift-check.md§ Defer; Step 5's deferred-drift recital reads that todo and prints
the same line shape workflow.md § What to do before ending a session uses for /execute-tracks. If TaskCreate is unavailable
in this session, hold the <count> and <short-stamp-base-SHA>
(or the unstamped variant flag) in in-context memory instead,
matching the gate file's § Defer paragraph.
Suppress — continue this session with no recital at session
end.
No-drift (with or without the gate's normalization commit), Defer,
and Suppress all proceed to Step 1a without further user prompt.
Ordering: Step 1.5 runs after the <dir-name> resolver (so the
resolved name is available when the script's --mode full walk
resolves the plan dir from the active branch) and before Step 1b's
mkdir (so the script's internal Skip-#1 directory check reads the
pre-creation _workflow/ state on fresh /create-plan invocations).
The skip check is now internal to the script, not an inline gate-bash
[ -d … ].
Interaction with Step 1a's handoff scan. Step 1.5 fires before
Step 1a. On a /create-plan resume where handoff-*.md exists in
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/, the drift gate fires before the
handoff loader notices. No failure mode loses the handoff: on Migrate now the
handoff file persists on disk (it is already committed) and the next
/create-plan invocation's Step 1a picks it up after the drift gate
clears; on Defer or Suppress, Step 1a's handoff resume runs after
Step 1.5 in the same session. Per-session TaskCreate todos do not
survive /clear, so a paused Session A's Defer state is not carried
into Session B — Session B's Step 1.5 re-evaluates drift independently.
Step 1a — Handoff check (mandatory, before any other on-disk work).
Run:
ls -t docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null
If any files exist, load
mid-phase-handoff.md:planner:1
and follow its §Resume protocol BEFORE Step 1b. A previous
/create-plan session paused mid-research or mid-planning and left a
handoff to be re-presented. Do NOT ask for the aim, start fresh
research, or write plan files until the handoff is resolved.
Step 1b — Create the workflow directory.
As the first durable action of /create-plan, ensure the workflow
directory exists so research handoff files have a home if context
fills up before Step 4:
mkdir -p docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/plan
This is idempotent — safe to re-run on resume. The directory carries
the research log, plan, design, track files, review files, and handoff
files; the Phase 4 cleanup commit removes it before merge (see
.claude/workflow/conventions.md§1.2).
Step 1c — Resume check (before the aim prompt).
After Step 1.5 (drift) and Step 1a (handoff) have cleared, check the
design-first artifacts plus the phase ledger and the single-track glob on
disk:
ls docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/design.md \
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/implementation-plan.md \
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/phase-ledger.md \
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/plan/track-1.md 2>/dev/null
The routing signal is the three complexity axes the ledger now carries (D10):
the design gate (does a design.md exist), the plan-presence /
track-count signal (how many track files the planner authored — more than
one means an implementation-plan.md exists), and the Phase-1-complete
marker (did Phase 1 finish cleanly). A plan-less change has no plan
(D2), so implementation-plan.md presence cannot disambiguate it; the
phase ledger is the signal — when the ledger records design_gate=no and
the plan-presence signal is single (tracks=1), an interrupted plan-less
session resumes off the ledger, with the plan/track-1.md glob as the
secondary signal that the one track file was written. When the plan is
present (tracks > 1), implementation-plan.mdpresence stays the
routing signal, and the design gate is read from the ledgerdesign_gate
field, never from a plan line (the plan no longer carries a tier line; the
classification moved to the ledger per D4) and never from a fresh read of the
research log, which would be a third decision-content read site and break S2.
The new shape the three axes make expressible is a design with one track
and no plan (design_gate=yes, tracks=1): on disk it is a design.md,
no plan, and one track file — a file set identical to a mid-authoring
crash that wrote design.md before deriving any plan. File presence alone
cannot tell the two apart, so the Phase-1-complete marker is the
disambiguator: set (phase1_complete=yes) means the design+single-track
steady state (do not re-author); unset means a mid-authoring crash (re-enter
Step 4a). The marker check runs first to separate "Phase 1 is done" from
"Phase 1 is not done"; the existing committed-and-clean design.md check
still applies within the crash arm to tell a frozen design apart from an
unfrozen one.
Read the three fields from the ledger once before routing — the same
last-value-wins fields the script's --append-ledger seeds at Phase 1
(conventions.md§1.1Phase ledger):
LEDGER="docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/phase-ledger.md"# design gate (yes/no), track count (integer), and the Phase-1-complete# marker (yes); each last-value-wins, empty if no ledger or no such line.
LEDGER_DESIGN_GATE="$(sed -n 's/.* design_gate=\([a-z]*\).*/\1/p' "$LEDGER" 2>/dev/null | tail -n 1)"
LEDGER_TRACKS="$(sed -n 's/.* tracks=\([0-9]*\).*/\1/p' "$LEDGER" 2>/dev/null | tail -n 1)"
LEDGER_PHASE1_COMPLETE="$(sed -n 's/.* phase1_complete=\([a-z]*\).*/\1/p' "$LEDGER" 2>/dev/null | tail -n 1)"
Route on what exists. Evaluate the branches in order; the first whose
condition holds wins. The design.md-present branch fans out on the
Phase-1-complete marker (steady state vs mid-authoring crash); the no-design
branches differ from it by design.md absence. The plan-less resume branch
and the fresh-start branch both describe the no-plan/no-design state, so the
order matters: the more-specific plan-less resume is reached first and the
fresh-start branch is the catch-all that fires only when no earlier branch
matched.
design.md exists, implementation-plan.md does not — a design.md
is written (design_gate=yes) and no plan exists. Two on-disk-identical
states share this signature — the design+single-track steady state and a
mid-authoring crash — so check the Phase-1-complete marker first:
Marker set (LEDGER_PHASE1_COMPLETE = yes) — Phase 1 finished
cleanly. This is the design+single-track steady state (design_gate=yes,
tracks=1): the design and its one track file are the durable Phase-1
artifacts and there is no plan by derivation (a cross-track summary is
vacuous for one track). This is a normal resume, not a Step-4 entry:
the drift / handoff / state routing above already handled it; do not
re-author the design or re-derive a plan. Proceed to Step 2 only if the
user explicitly asks to start a new aim against the same dir (rare). The
marker alone is sufficient by construction here: a clean Phase-1 seed
co-writes phase1_complete=yes and design_gate=yes on the same line, so
a set marker implies the gate and no cross-check of LEDGER_DESIGN_GATE is
needed on this arm. The LEDGER_DESIGN_GATE / LEDGER_TRACKS locals
parsed at the top of the step are read only by the lower no-design
branches — they are intentionally unused here, not a missing check.
Marker unset (LEDGER_PHASE1_COMPLETE blank) — Phase 1 did not
finish: the prior /create-plan invocation authored (and possibly
committed) design.md but ended — crash, context-full /clear, or the
user stopping the session — before the plan derivation completed and the
marker was seeded. This is the crash-recovery arm. File presence alone
is not proof the design is frozen: edit-design writes design.md to
disk in its apply step, before the cold-read review runs and before
the design commit lands. A session interrupted after the write but before
the review passed leaves an unreviewed, uncommitteddesign.md on
disk. So confirm the design is committed and clean — the on-disk proxy
for "frozen and reviewed", since the Add initial design commit lands only
after its review passes:
# committed: at least one commit touches design.md
git log -1 --format=%h -- docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/design.md
# clean: no uncommitted changes to design.md (empty output = clean)
git status --porcelain docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/design.md
Committed (non-empty git log) AND clean (empty git status) —
the design is frozen and reviewed, and the prior invocation crashed
between the design commit and the plan derivation. Auto-resume into
Step 4b (plan derivation): skip Step 2's aim prompt and Step 3's
Phase 0 research loop entirely — the aim and research are already
captured in the frozen design.md and the conversation that produced
it. Read planning.md (deferred from Step 1) and derive the plan from
the frozen design. This crash-recovery resume reaches the same Step 4b
the collapsed happy path flows into directly, so the plan derives
identically whether or not the prior session was interrupted.
Uncommitted (empty git log) OR dirty (non-empty git status) —
a session was interrupted mid-design-authoring (before the Add initial design freeze-and-commit). Resume Step 4a, not Step 4b: re-enter
the edit-design review loop so the adversarial gate and cold-read pass
run and the design is committed before any plan derives from it. This
arm is retained by the collapse: even though the happy path no
longer crosses a session boundary, a crash mid-authoring still leaves an
unfrozen design.md, and re-entering Step 4a is how that state recovers.
Re-entering the loop on an already-good design is idempotent and
harmless, so this branch is safe even on a false alarm (e.g., a stray
editor write left the file dirty).
implementation-plan.md exists, design.md does not — a no-design
multi-track change whose plan is already derived (design_gate=no,
tracks > 1; a one-track change has no plan, so it never reaches this
branch). The missing design.md is by derivation (design_gate=no), not a
sign of an interrupted Step 4a. This is a normal resume, not a Step-4 entry:
the drift / handoff / state routing above already handled it; do not re-run
Step 4 and do not route to design authoring. If the ledger instead records
design_gate=yes (or is absent / unreadable), a multi-track plan with no
design.md is malformed (the design should have been authored and committed
first) or the branch predates the ledger scheme; treat it as the Both
files exist normal resume below and surface the inconsistency to the user
rather than silently re-deriving. Proceed to Step 2 only if the user
explicitly asks to start a new aim against the same dir (rare).
Plan-less resume — ledger records design_gate=no and tracks=1,
plan/track-1.md present, no implementation-plan.md, no design.md — a
no-design single-track session whose one track file is already written
(D10). The ledger, not a plan, is the resume signal here; the
plan/track-1.md glob is the secondary signal that the track file landed.
This is a normal resume, not a Step-4 entry: the drift / handoff / state
routing above already handled it; do not re-run Step 4 and do not author a
plan (a one-track change has none). Proceed to Step 2 only if the user
explicitly asks to start a new aim against the same dir (rare).
Ledger absent, plan/track-1.md present, no implementation-plan.md,
no design.md — a no-design single-track Phase-1 session interrupted
between the track-file write and the ledger seed (the seed runs after the
track file is written; Step "Seed the phase ledger"). The durable Phase-1
artifact for a one-track no-design change is the track file, and it landed,
so this is not a fresh start: re-authoring plan/track-1.md would
clobber work already on disk. Resume by seeding the ledger (--design-gate no --tracks 1, plus the matched categories and any §1.7 staging mode) and
continuing from the recorded state, not by re-running research,
classification, or the Step-4b track-file Write. (A multi-track change
cannot reach this branch: its durable Phase-1 artifact is
implementation-plan.md, whose presence is matched by an earlier branch
above.)
Neither implementation-plan.md nor design.md exists, and no plan-less
resume signal is present — fresh start. The "no plan-less resume signal"
condition is the OR of three testable arms, evaluated against the
LEDGER_DESIGN_GATE / LEDGER_TRACKS values parsed at the top of this
step: the ledger is absent; OR the ledger is present but its
design_gate field is empty or unreadable (LEDGER_DESIGN_GATE blank);
OR the ledger records design_gate=no and tracks=1 but plan/track-1.md
has not been written yet (the branch immediately above already claimed
the case where the track file exists). Proceed to Step 2 (aim), then Step 3
(research), then Step 4 (the design-gate classifier + adversarial gate, then
Step 4a/4b). This also covers the narrow /clear window where Step 4's gate
cleared but no artifact was written yet: with no plan, no design.md, no
seeded ledger fields, and no track file on disk there is no resume signal,
so the resume correctly reads as a fresh start and Step 4's classifier
re-runs, re-deriving the classification from the now-populated log through
its existing sanctioned authoring read — no extra read site, S2 intact.
Both files exist — the plan is already derived (a design-and-plan change
with both committed); this is a normal resume, not a Step-4 entry. The
drift / handoff / state routing above already handled it; do not re-run
Step 4. Proceed to Step 2 only if the user explicitly asks to start a new
aim against the same dir (rare); the common case is the session has nothing
new to plan.
This check has a defined resume path for every artifact combination, so the
"never a dead end" invariant holds for every arm. A design.md with no plan
is never a dead end — with the marker set it is the design+single-track
steady state (do not re-author); with the marker unset it is a crash, and
the committed-and-clean check then routes a frozen design to Step 4b and an
unfrozen one back to Step 4a. A derived plan resumes normally without
re-entering design authoring, and a plan-less single-track session resumes off
the ledger and its single track file (or, when the seed had not yet run, by
seeding the ledger and continuing) rather than reading as a fresh start. The
check runs after the drift and handoff gates so a pending migration or
handoff resolves first (those can change what is on disk), and before the
aim prompt so a Step-4b crash-recovery resume does not re-ask for an aim
already captured in the design or the research log.
Step 2 — Ask the user for the aim, then seed the research log.
Skip this step when Step 1c auto-resumed into Step 4b (the aim is already
captured in the frozen design.md and the research log). Otherwise, after
you have finished reading the workflow documents, ask the user to describe
the aim and goal for this session. Do NOT proceed until the user provides
the aim. Wait for the user's response before starting any research or
planning work.
Once the user provides the aim, write the research log's ## Initial request (the verbatim aim) as the first durable Phase-0 action. The
_workflow/plan/ directory already exists from Step 1b
(mkdir -p .../plan), so write the log directly: create
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/research-log.md (a Write, not a shell
command) with the six
sections research.md §The research log defines: ## Initial request
(the verbatim aim, written once); the empty ## Decision Log,
## Surprises & Discoveries, ## Open Questions continuous logs;
## Baseline and re-validation filled only on a workflow-modifying
branch; and the empty ## Adversarial gate record the Step 4 gate appends
its verdict headings to. The log is created unstamped: it is on the
§1.6(f) never-stamped list (D19), so no line-1 workflow-sha comment is
written and the §1.6(b) paired-idiom does not run for it. Idempotent on resume: if the
log already exists (a prior Phase-0 session created it), leave its
## Initial request intact and append to the continuous logs only. The log
is the agent's internal memory: seed it without narrating the seeding to
the user (research.md §Rules, the Keep the research log agent-internal rule).
The plan will be saved to:
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/implementation-plan.md
(the _workflow/ subdir holds every ephemeral working file — research
log, plan, design, track files, reviews — and is removed in the Phase 4
cleanup commit before merge; see conventions.md§1.2 and
workflow.md § Final Artifacts).
The codebase is at the current working directory.
Step 3 — Research phase (Phase 0).
Once the user provides the aim, enter research mode. In this mode:
Answer user questions about the codebase, architecture, and design
Explore code (read files, search for patterns, trace call chains)
Perform internet research when asked (web search, fetch documentation)
Present findings and intermediate conclusions
Help the user evaluate trade-offs and alternatives
Append decisions, surprises, and open questions to the research log
as they settle — each entry an ISO timestamp and a [ctx=<level>] tag,
each ## Decision Log entry carrying the **Why:** and
**Alternatives rejected:** fields the Step-4 adversarial gate
challenges (research.md §The research log for the append cadence). Do
this silently: the log is agent-internal, so surface its content to the
user as plain conversational prose, never as log quotes, section names,
or D-numbers (research.md §Rules, the Keep the research log agent-internal rule)
Do NOT produce plan files, design documents, or track decompositions
Stay in research mode until the user explicitly asks to create the plan
(e.g., "create the plan", "let's plan this", "proceed to planning").
Step 4 — Classify the design gate, gate the research log, then transition to planning (Phase 1).
Phase 1 is complexity-adaptive (planning.md §Tier classification): a
one-line fix does not pay the ceremony a durability rework needs. Step 4
runs in three parts at the Phase 0 → 1 boundary, before any Phase-1
artifact is authored:
Design-gate classification — propose the change-level design gate
(does a design.md exist) from the now-rich research log, with the
centrally-matched HIGH-risk categories, and let the user confirm.
The adversarial gate — run the relocated adversarial review on the
research log as a gate (loop on blockers, gate on should-fix, no
skip), domain-primed by the confirmed matched categories.
Transition — branch to Step 4a (design-first, when the design gate is
yes) or straight to Step 4b (thinned plan + tracks, or one track file when
the change is single-track).
Step 4 part 1 — The design-gate classifier.
When the user asks to create the plan, before authoring anything, confirm
the research log captures the conversation's decisions (append any settled
but unlogged), then classify the change. Read the now-rich research log's
## Decision Log, ## Surprises & Discoveries, and ## Open Questions —
this is a sanctioned Step-4 authoring read (S2). Classify the change on two
orthogonal gates (planning.md §Tier classification):
Gate
Question
Answers
Gate 1
Does the change need a design.md?
yes / no
Gate 2
Does the change span multiple tracks?
multi / single
Gate 1 is the design gate this part persists: it decides whether a
design.md (and the Phase-4 design-final.md) exists. Gate 2's
multi-vs-single answer is not decided up front here — the track count is
not knowable until the planner has decomposed the change, so plan presence is
decided at the end of Step 4b from the authored track count (D1). design = yes implies multi-track, so the only single-track shape Gate 2 adds beyond
the design gate is the no-design single-track change.
Gate 1's "needs a design" test reuses the HIGH-risk category list in
risk-tagging.md §Gate 1 reuse (change-level), read at the change
level: Gate 1 is yes only when one of those categories is central to the
change's purpose, not merely touched by one incidental edit. Record the
centrally-matched categories — they prime the adversarial gate's
lenses in part 2 and seed the Phase-4 durable carrier's lens set (D16).
Propose the design gate (design_gate=yes/no) and the matched categories to
the user and wait for confirmation. The user confirms or overrides the
design gate in either direction, and may add or drop an adversarial lens
explicitly at this point (D16) — confirming the design gate confirms the
matched categories, so an override may shift the lenses. A design_gate=no
change runs its gate lens-free unless the user adds one. This is a human gate
on the artifact-shedding decision; do not proceed to part 2 until the design
gate and the lens set are confirmed. The confirmed design_gate value is
seeded into the phase ledger at the Step "Seed the phase ledger" below — it
is the resume router's design-gate signal and the consistency / structural
reviews' design-presence read.
Step 4 part 2 — The adversarial gate on the research log.
Once the design gate is confirmed, run the relocated adversarial review on the
research log as a gate before any Phase-1 artifact derives (D6,
planning.md §Tier classification). The gate spawns the existing
reviewer-adversarial in its research-log scope
(prompts/adversarial-review.md §Research-log-scoped review (Phase 0→1));
no new reviewer is added.
Create the gate's review-file directory once (idempotent), before the
first spawn — the canonical track-anchored plan/track-N/reviews/ home
does not exist yet, so the Phase-0→1 gate writes to a plan-scoped directory
(conventions-execution.md§2.5 §Third-scope review-file home):
mkdir -p docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/reviews
Spawn the adversarial sub-agent via the Agent tool (the same recipe the
sibling edit-design/SKILL.md uses for the identical reviewer; the
research-log Inputs block in prompts/adversarial-review.md §Research-log
Inputs substitutes the inputs):
prompt: the full content of
.claude/workflow/prompts/adversarial-review.md. The prompt's
TOC-protocol header resolves the reviewer's phase to 0→1, which routes it
to the § Research-log-scoped review (Phase 0→1) section. Substitute these
inputs into that section's ### Research-log Inputs block:
- research_log_path: docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/research-log.md
- matched_categories: the centrally-matched HIGH-risk categories from the
confirmed design gate's Gate 1, plus any user-added lens — or (none) for a
`design_gate=no` change with no user lens
- output_path: docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/reviews/research-log-adversarial-iter<N>.md
(one file per gate iteration, <N> starting at 1 — the <type>-iter<N>.md
naming conventions-execution.md §2.5 §Third-scope review-file home fixes)
- codebase_path: the repo root
Model and effort (D14). Pin the spawn's model on the Agent tool's
model field by the confirmed design gate:
design_gate=yes → model: fable
design_gate=no → model: opus
The Agent tool has no per-spawn effort field, and there is no
adversarial-reviewer agent file under .claude/agents/ to carry effort in
frontmatter — the adversarial reviewer is a prompt-file plus a
general-purpose spawn. So the model half lands on the model field as
above, and the xhigh-effort half rides the session default (it cannot be
pinned per-spawn through this surface). D14 accepts the effort caveat: the
effort half degrading to the session default does not reopen the decision.
Output handling (D17). The reviewer's output mode is file: it
persists the conventions-execution.md§2.5 manifest-plus-sections review
file to output_path and returns only the thin manifest. Validate the
manifest's findings count against the file with the §2.5 count grep
(grep -cE '^### [A-Z]+[0-9]+ ' <file>) before trusting the index, then
partial-fetch ## Findings from disk — do not pull the whole file into
context. This caps the gate loop's context cost and makes a mid-gate
/clear resumable from the committed file. Commit the review file at
reviewer-return as a Workflow-update commit (the resume precondition;
conventions-execution.md§2.5 §Third-scope review-file home).
Gate semantics (no skip). This run is a gate, not an advisory pass:
A blocker sends the decision back to research to be re-decided; the
gate loops — re-spawn the reviewer (incrementing <N>) after the log
decision is revised, until no blocker remains. The iteration-1 run is a
fresh finding set; iteration ≥2 runs use the verdict-producer manifest
variant (per-prior-finding VERIFIED / STILL OPEN / REJECTED
verdicts plus any new finding), per conventions-execution.md§2.5
§Verdict-producer manifest variant.
A should-fixgates: the log's rationale must strengthen before the
gate clears.
Iteration cap (iteration_budget, default 3). The re-spawn loop is
bounded exactly as the sibling edit-design cold-read loop is
(edit-design/SKILL.md § Inputs iteration_budget, § Failure modes and
recovery). Cap the gate at iteration_budget re-spawns. On exhaustion with
blockers or unaddressed should-fix findings still open, do not loop
further: the user is the gate — surface the still-open findings and the
decision history and let the user accept the risk, revise the decision, or
abandon the change, mirroring edit-design § Failure modes "the user is
the gate when the budget is exhausted". A gate must never spin unbounded on
a contested decision.
There is no skip — the log is not a track that can be dropped; a
would-be skip is raised to a blocker so the change is re-justified in
research before any artifact derives.
Record the verdict on the log. At each gate-clear or re-challenge,
append one verdict heading to the research log's ## Adversarial gate record
section in the canonical shape defined once in research.md §The research log
(Gate-record cadence): ### Adversarial review of this log (<ISO>) — <PASS | NEEDS REVISION[: <counts>]>,
followed by a one-line pointer to the iteration's _workflow/reviews/research-log-adversarial-iter<N>.md
file. This on-log record is the gate's durable verdict carrier. The gate's
review files are ephemeral (they die at the Phase 4 cleanup); the durable
verdict carrier the Phase-4 consumers and the S3 freeze-order gate read is
this ## Adversarial gate record section, not the review files
(conventions-execution.md§2.5 §Third-scope review-file home).
Pre-presentation re-trigger vs post-presentation queue. While
authoring a Phase-1 artifact (the full-tier Step-4a design), a
load-bearing decision appended to the research log re-opens the gate on
that entry immediately (D5). Once a frozen-ready artifact is presented
for user review, findings instead queue and batch through one gate run
— the D15 review-iteration batching, whose queue mechanics (the tagged
[clarification]/[decision] queue, the three-step batch, and the
multi-session handoff queue block) live in this SKILL's review-hold
batching section and mid-phase-handoff.md. Step 4 here owns the first,
pre-presentation gate run; the batch loop is the consumer of the same gate.
Step 4 part 3 — Transition to Phase 1.
After the gate clears, branch on the confirmed design gate (part 1's only
confirmed output — the multi-vs-single track count is not decided here;
it is settled at the end of Step 4b, where the plan-presence decision lives):
design_gate=yes — design-first: Step 4a (author + review + freeze
design.md) then Step 4b, within one /create-plan invocation (the
freeze-and-commit between them stays the logical gate and crash checkpoint,
but is no longer a session boundary), exactly as the rest of this Step
describes.
design_gate=no — no design.md. Skip Step 4a; go straight to
Step 4b and author the track files directly from the research log in a
single Phase-1 session, with the full inline Decision Records and no
design seed to derive from. The thinned derived-mirror plan is authored at
the end of Step 4b iff the planner decomposed into more than one track (the
plan-presence decision, D1); resume state otherwise lives in the phase
ledger (conventions.md§1.2Per-axis artifact set).
The design_gate=yes design-first split keeps the design-authoring and
plan-derivation work in order, but both run in one /create-plan invocation:
Step 4a (design authoring, design_gate=yes only) — author design.md via
edit-design, run its review, and freeze it. The design's review passing
(or the user accepting open risks) is the gate that releases Step 4b; the
freeze-and-commit is the crash checkpoint but no longer ends the session.
Step 4b (plan derivation) — in the same /create-plan invocation for
full (flowing on from Step 4a once the design is frozen and committed),
or the same Phase-1 session for lite/minimal, derive the
Architecture Notes, Decision Records, and track files (from the frozen
design.md in full; from the research log in lite/minimal).
Design→plan flow within one invocation (full tier only). In full,
Step 4a freezes and commits design.md (Add initial design) and then
flows straight into Step 4b in the same /create-plan invocation; the
two no longer span a session boundary. The freeze-and-commit stays the
logical gate and the crash checkpoint — the plan derives only from a
committed, frozen design — but it no longer ends the session. The context
isolation the old boundary forced is supplied directly by sub-agent
authoring: Step 4b's track derivation runs through the design-author spawn,
a fresh cold spawn that reads the frozen committed design regardless of
session, so no /clear is needed to keep design-authoring context out of
plan derivation. The collapse therefore rests on a by-reference
orchestration invariant (built in Track 1, confirmed by gate A6 before this
collapse was applied): the author spawn returns only a thin summary, never the
drafted document, so the combined session does not re-accumulate the design and
plan context the boundary kept apart. The running skill always takes the
collapsed path — there is no runtime branch here that the executor evaluates.
The "retain the boundary instead" fallback is a design-time decision rule, not
a live one: it governs whether this collapse ships at all. By-reference was
confirmed statically (gate A6, held green) for this staged change; the
live-harness re-confirmation is a deferred Phase-4-promotion / first-live-run
gate. Were a future change to break the invariant, the boundary would be
reinstated at that authoring step, not skipped at runtime.
The startup protocol's auto-resume into Step 4b is now crash-recovery-only:
it fires when design.md is committed and clean, implementation-plan.md
does not exist, AND the Phase-1-complete marker is unset — the state a crash
leaves between the design commit and the plan derivation. The marker check
comes first: a set marker with that same on-disk file set is the
design+single-track steady state (do not re-author), not a crash; the
committed-and-clean test then (within the unset-marker crash arm) proves the
design is reviewed rather than abandoned mid-authoring. This is checked after
Step 1.5 (drift) and Step 1a (handoff) have cleared and before the aim prompt
(Step 2): a crash-recovery resume into Step 4b skips the aim prompt and the
Phase 0 research loop, because the aim and research are already captured in
the frozen design.md and the conversation that produced it. Step 1c above is
the single decision-rule home for every artifact combination — it spells out
the marker fan-out, the exact git log / git status check, the branch
order, the never-a-dead-end fallback, and the resume-Step-4a arm for a dirty
or uncommitted design; this block does not re-derive that routing.
A design_gate=no change has no design.md and so no Step 4a at
all: its Step-4b plan derivation runs in the same Phase-1 session that
Step 4 part 1/2 ran in, with no design freeze in between. After the collapse
full also runs Step 4a and Step 4b in one invocation, so the difference is
no longer single-session vs two-session — it is whether a design.md is
authored and frozen first (full) or not (lite/minimal). Step 1c's
tier-aware branch keeps an interrupted no-design tier (plan on disk, no
design.md by design) routing to a normal resume rather than back into
design authoring.
Step 4a — Author the design first (design_gate=yes only).
This sub-step runs when design_gate=yes only. When design_gate=no there
is no design.md; skip directly to Step 4b. When the user asks to create the
plan with design_gate=yes (and design.md does not yet exist):
First, read the design workflow document (deferred from Step 1):
.claude/workflow/design-document-rules.md — design document rules,
structure, and examples
Summarize the key research findings and decisions from the conversation, then
author design.md via the edit-design skill (phase1-creation kind) —
not direct Edit / Write. phase1-creation runs the dual-clean inner
loop (see edit-design/SKILL.md § Workflow and design-document-rules.md
§ Working / sync): each round spawns the code-grounded author plus a per-round
readability-auditor plus a separate per-round warm absorption-check that
runs the absorption-completeness cross-check (every load-bearing research-log
decision in scope appears as a seed D-record in design.md). After the inner
loop converges to dual-clean, the cold comprehension-review gate runs once;
it assesses whether a fresh reader can build a working mental model and runs
no absorption cross-check inline (that check is the separate
absorption-check spawn's job). The cold comprehension gate is gated behind
the log-adversarial gate clearing (S3): the gate cannot run while a
log-adversarial entry is open, so a load-bearing decision surfaced while
authoring the design is appended to the log, re-challenged at the gate, and
cleared before the comprehension gate assesses the draft, matching the ordering
the in-edit-design adversarial pass used to give. Iterate until the
comprehension gate passes (or the user accepts open risks), then write the
design document to
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/design.md using the structure below. The
design document must incorporate findings and decisions from the research
phase — it reflects the design choices discussed with the user.
Commit the frozen design.md (Step 5 carries the commit/push/draft-PR
mechanics; the Add initial design commit is the logical gate and crash
checkpoint), then flow straight into Step 4b in the same /create-plan
invocation — do not end the session. The freeze-and-commit no longer ends the
session; sub-agent authoring supplies the context isolation the old boundary
forced (see the Design→plan flow block above). The auto-resume condition above
is the crash-recovery path that re-enters Step 4b only when this invocation
ended before deriving the plan.
Step 4b — Derive the plan and track files.
In full, Step 4b runs in the same /create-plan invocation, flowing on
from Step 4a once design.md is frozen and committed (the design seed the
plan derives from); the crash-recovery resume re-enters here only when a
session ended after the design commit but before the plan derived (design.md
committed and clean, implementation-plan.md absent). In lite/minimal,
Step 4b runs in the same Phase-1 session immediately after the Step 4 gate
clears — there is no design.md, so the research log is the seed the
carriers absorb. Read the planning workflow document (deferred from Step 1):
Then derive the plan and track files. The decision seed is tier-keyed
(S2): in full, seed Decision Records from the frozen design.md seed's
D-records; in lite/minimal, Step-4b authoring is itself the research
log's sanctioned read point, so the track Decision Records absorb the log's
load-bearing decisions directly. The thinned plan (in lite/full; absent
in minimal), the track Decision
Records, and track files must incorporate findings and decisions from
the research phase (and, in full, the frozen design):
Track Decision Records reflect alternatives explored during research,
absorbed as full inline records in each relevant track's ## Decision Log
(the track-canonical live decision, D7)
Architecture Notes build on codebase exploration findings
Track descriptions incorporate constraints discovered during research
In full, the design.md seed reflects design choices discussed with
the user; the track inline records are seeded from (and stay faithful to)
it
Help the user develop the plan:
Understand the relevant parts of the codebase — explore the modules,
packages, and classes relevant to the goal. Build a mental model before
proposing anything.
Identify key decisions and constraints — technical, performance,
compatibility, and process constraints that will shape the plan.
Produce Architecture Notes following the workflow rules:
Component Map (required): Mermaid diagram if 3+ components with
non-trivial relationships, always paired with annotated bullet list.
Decision Records (required): one per non-obvious design choice, with
alternatives, rationale, risks, and track references.
Invariants & Contracts (if applicable): must map to testable assertions.
Integration Points (if applicable): how new code connects to existing code.
Decompose the work into tracks with full descriptions following the
workflow rules:
Every track gets an intro paragraph in the plan checklist
entry (a short paragraph of high-level context) and a matching
plan/track-N.md track file whose ## Purpose / Big Picture
section carries a one-line BLUF followed by the same intro
paragraph. The track's detailed content spreads across three
other plan-at-start homes (no length cap on any of them):
## Context and Orientation carries the codebase state at the
start of the track and the concrete deliverables it produces;
## Plan of Work carries the prose sequence of edits and
additions plus ordering constraints and invariants to preserve;
## Interfaces and Dependencies carries in-scope/out-of-scope
file boundaries, inter-track dependencies, and library/function
signatures. See conventions-execution.md§2.1 for the
canonical section list and lifecycle.
Populate each track file's ## Decision Log with the full
inline Decision Records the track owns — the track-canonical live
decision carrier (D7) in every tier. Each is a complete four-bullet
DR (Alternatives considered, Rationale, Risks/Caveats, Implemented-in),
seeded from the frozen design.md D-records in full and authored
directly from the research log in lite/minimal. The track file is
the live authority in every tier; in full, the design.md seed copy
is historical provenance with an optional **Full design** line into
the seed's mechanism — it never substitutes for the inline record.
Populate each track file's combined ## Invariants & Constraints
section (D9) with the track's testable technical / performance /
compatibility constraints and the testable invariants the plan's
Architecture Notes used to carry — they share this home because both
are a property that must hold, backed by a test (each invariant becomes
a test assertion in the relevant step). A process-only, non-testable
constraint goes to ## Context and Orientation or ## Decision Log
instead; Integration Points fold into ## Interfaces and Dependencies,
and Non-Goals move to the research log and the PR ## Motivation (and
design.md in full).
Include a track-level Mermaid component diagram inside the
track file's ## Context and Orientation section when the
track has 3+ internal components with non-trivial interactions.
Track-level diagrams are never rendered in the plan file.
Track sizing rule: size each track by its in-scope file footprint, not
its step count. Maximize — pack autonomous units in up to the soft
footprint ceiling (related or not), opening a new track only when the
next unit breaches the ceiling or breaks independent mergeability. A
track ≤~12 in-scope files that folds into a neighbor is a merge candidate
(flag-only); a track over ~20-25 in-scope files is a split candidate.
Both bounds are soft: an out-of-bounds track passes when its track file
carries a written justification. The full rule lives in planning.md
§Track descriptions. The execution agent handles sequencing and episode
propagation between dependent tracks.
For each track, include a Scope indicator:
Format: > **Scope:** ~N files covering X, Y, Z
Approximate file footprint + brief list of major work pieces. The
footprint is a per-track soft heuristic, not the per-step ~12 split
cap; the in-scope file set already lives in the track file's §Interfaces.
These are strategic signals, not tactical commitments — step
decomposition happens during Phase 3 execution.
Do NOT include full - [ ] Step: items or (provisional) markers.
Focus energy on track descriptions and architecture, not premature
step decomposition.
Order the tracks so dependencies are respected — earlier tracks don't
depend on later ones. Annotate dependencies with
> **Depends on:** Track N.
Identify key test scenarios and invariants that must be covered — this
is strategic (what to test and why), not tactical (how to implement tests).
Anchor the carriers to the tier's decision seed. In full, anchor
every Architecture Note, Decision Record, and track description to the
frozen design.md authored in Step 4a: the design is the seed the
plan derives from, so the track inline Decision Records mirror its
D-records, the Component Map matches its class / workflow diagrams, and
each DR that needs long-form support links to a design section via
**Full design**. The design is not re-authored here — it is frozen
(design-document-rules.md Rule 15). If plan derivation surfaces a
design gap that the frozen design cannot answer, route the design intent
through a fresh edit-design mutation in this Step 4b session before the
freeze re-applies; do not back-fill it silently into the plan. In
lite/minimal there is no design.md: anchor the carriers to the
research log directly — Step-4b authoring is the log's sanctioned
read point (S2), and the track inline Decision Records absorb the log's
load-bearing decisions and their rejected alternatives.
Author the track sections through the dual-clean loop (Step-4b loop,
every tier). Do not author the track-file prose inline. The track files
are the durable human-facing carrier in every tier (the only one in
lite / minimal, where no design.md buffers the reader from
log-derived density), so they go through the same code-grounded author plus
dual-clean inner loop that edit-design runs on design.md. Items 1-8
above settle the decisions, the track boundaries, the Decision Records, and
the section homes; this item hands that settled shape to the design-author
spawn, which writes the prose, and runs the readability auditor and the
absorption check against what it wrote. This is the track-path analog of the
edit-design phase1-creation loop (edit-design/SKILL.md § Workflow,
§ Step 6), parameterized to target=tracks. Run it after items 1-8 produce
the track shape and before the Step 5 commit.
The loop reuses three of the four roles Track 1 built (the
design-author, the readability-auditor, and the absorption-check) plus
the de-warmed comprehension-review gate. Each is an agent definition with a
minimal tools: allow-list spawned by subagent_type basename, with its
per-spawn parameters in a params file under _workflow/reviews/ (one file per
spawn; the plan-scoped authoring-loop review home, conventions-execution.md§2.5 Third-scope review-file home — the same home edit-design/SKILL.md
§ Step 4 uses) and a byte-identical spawn-prompt body that names only that
file, so the shared prompt body caches across the fan-out. The spawn
contracts, the
params-file keys, and the fan-out cache warm-up are the same ones
edit-design/SKILL.md § Step 4 defines for the creation kinds; this item
reuses them with the track-path values below rather than restating them.
Round 1: spawn the author (subagent_type: design-author,
description: "Track authoring (Step-4b round 1)"). Its params file carries
target=tracks, output_path set to the plan/ directory the track files
land under, research_log_path set to the research log under _workflow/,
round=1, and (in full only) design_path set to the frozen
the track prose derives from. The author's seed source is the frozen
in , the research log directly in / . The
author grounds the whole change, writes every track file's plan-at-start
sections, and returns a thin summary only, never the drafted track files
(the by-reference contract; if it returns the draft, the track files are
still on disk, so proceed with them and note the violation, per
§ Failure modes). On later rounds the author is
re-spawned with the auditor's flagged passages and re-grounds only those, as
in the inner loop below.
Do NOT implement anything. Only research and plan.
Compute the workflow-SHA stamp once before writing the templates.
Run the paired test-and-fallback idiom from
conventions.md:planner:1 §1.6(b) verbatim;
every artifact created in this Step 4b session reuses the single
$WORKFLOW_SHA value, so the plan and track files seeded together share
a stamp by construction:
Substitute the resolved value (not the literal $WORKFLOW_SHA
token) into the line-1 stamp comment of each of the two Step-4b fenced
templates that follow (the implementation-plan and the track-file
templates). Write does not perform shell expansion. If you emit
$WORKFLOW_SHA verbatim, the artifact's stamp is malformed and the
drift check will route to migration on the next gate run. The fallback
to git rev-parse HEAD covers fresh repos and repos where workflow
paths have been moved; in every other case the path-scoped log already
returns a usable SHA.
The orchestrator (not the author spawn) owns the line-1 stamp, the same
split edit-design uses where the skill owns the stamp and the author owns
the prose. The orchestrator writes the plan file directly with the stamp on
line 1; for the track files the author writes in item 9's loop, the
orchestrator hands the author the track-file template with the resolved stamp
already on line 1 (so the author fills only the prose below it) and confirms
each authored track file's line-1 stamp is the resolved value before the
Step 5 commit.
The design.md template is authored in Step 4a, not here (and only in
full).lite and minimal have no design.md — skip this template
and its reference block entirely. In full, design.md is seeded in the
earlier Step 4a flow via edit-design (phase1-creation), which
carries its own
idempotency-guarded stamp directive and computes $WORKFLOW_SHA at that
point's HEAD. On the collapsed happy path Step 4a and Step 4b run in the
same /create-plan invocation, so the design and the plan / track stamps
are normally computed against the same HEAD and match. They can still
diverge on the crash-recovery path, where the design committed in one
invocation and the plan derives in a later one: the design's stamp then
differs from the plan / track stamps by however many workflow-format commits
landed between the two invocations. That asymmetry is expected and benign:
the drift gate's no-drift normalization collapses the divergence on the next
clean gate run, and the per-branch migration reunifies the stamps. The
design template below is reproduced for the Step 4a author's reference; do
not re-write design.md in Step 4b (it is frozen —
design-document-rules.md Rule 15).
The dual-seed design-mechanics.md case (when the planner seeds
both design.md and design-mechanics.md together) does NOT get a
fourth fenced template in this Step. The dual-seed write routes
through edit-design phase1-creation with target=both, which
carries an idempotency-guarded stamp directive that stamps the file
when it has not already been stamped. Keeping the dual-seed write on
the existing edit-design route avoids duplicating a near-identical
template here; the idempotency guard covers both the
/create-plan-driven dual seed and a direct edit-design phase1-creation invocation outside /create-plan.
In lite/full, write the thinned derived-mirror plan to
docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/implementation-plan.md; in minimal there
is no plan (D2) — skip it and the template below. The planner writes the
thin plan file directly (it is a cross-track summary, not dense human-facing
prose). The track files are authored by the design-author spawn in
item 9's dual-clean loop, not written inline here: one track file per planned
track at docs/adr/<dir-name>/_workflow/plan/track-N.md, to the structure
below. The structure below is the shape the author writes to (the section
homes, the seeded Decision Records, and the placeholders), handed to the
author spawn as the settled track shape, with the author supplying the prose.
The plan is a derived-mirror plan (D1): a cross-track summary that holds
no fact a track file does not already own — the ## Checklist plus a thin
cross-track Component Map. Each track file carries that track's detail
spread across the four homes — ## Purpose / Big Picture (intro
paragraph), ## Context and Orientation (codebase state and any
track-level Mermaid diagram), ## Plan of Work (prose sequence of edits
and additions), and ## Interfaces and Dependencies
(in-scope/out-of-scope file boundaries, inter-track dependencies,
library/function signatures) — plus the full inline Decision Records in
## Decision Log (the track-canonical live carrier, D7) and the combined
## Invariants & Constraints (D9). Keeping per-track detail out of the plan
keeps /execute-tracks startup context small (see
.claude/workflow/conventions.md§1.2 for the directory layout under
_workflow/, the §1.2Per-axis artifact set, and the §1.2 thinned
lite/full plan content, and conventions-execution.md§2.1 for the
track-file shape and section lifecycle).
No tier line in the plan. The confirmed design gate and its matched
categories live in the phase ledgerdesign_gate / categories fields
(D4, conventions.md§1.1Phase ledger), seeded at Phase 1 below — not in
a plan line. Every fresh /execute-tracks session and the Step 1c resume
check read the design gate from the ledger, the one artifact present for every
change (including a plan-less single-track change), so the plan no longer
carries a **Change tier:** line.
Before writing the thinned-plan template, substitute the resolved
40-character SHA into the $WORKFLOW_SHA placeholder on line 1.
Thinned derived-mirror plan (full / lite). In lite there is no
design, so omit the ## Design Document block. The plan no longer carries
### Goals, ### Constraints, ### Architecture Notes (the full Decision
Records, Invariants, and Integration Points), ## Plan Review, or
## Final Artifacts (D5/D7): those move to the track files, the research
log, or the ledger / plan-review.md per the disposition in
conventions.md§1.2. The plan keeps only the thin cross-track Component
Map and the Checklist:
<!-- workflow-sha: $WORKFLOW_SHA -->
# <Feature Name>
## Design Document
[design.md](design.md)
<!-- omit the two lines above in `lite` — no design.md exists -->
## Component Map
<!-- Thin cross-track Component Map only: the slice of the system the change
touches, for cross-track impact assessment. Per-track detail, Decision
Records, invariants, and constraints live in the track files, not here.
Mermaid diagram (when 3+ components) + annotated bullet list — see
planning.md §Architecture Notes format for the budget rules. -->
<Mermaid diagram + annotated bullet list>
## Checklist
- [ ] Track 1: <title>
> <intro paragraph — high-level context; detailed description in plan/track-1.md>
> **Scope:** ~N files covering X, Y, Z
- [ ] Track 2: <title>
> <intro paragraph — high-level context; detailed description in plan/track-2.md>
> **Scope:** ~N files covering A, B
> **Depends on:** Track 1
minimal has no plan (D2); the single plan/track-1.md is the whole
change's canonical record and the ledger owns its resume state. Skip the
template above entirely in minimal and write only the track file below.
Each track file (plan/track-N.md) is created (by the design-author
spawn in item 9's loop) with the four
plan-at-start homes (## Purpose / Big Picture,
## Context and Orientation, ## Plan of Work,
## Interfaces and Dependencies) populated, the track's full inline
Decision Records seeded into ## Decision Log (the track-canonical live
carrier, D7 — see item 4 above), the combined
## Invariants & Constraints section populated with the track's testable
constraints and invariants (D9), and the track-level
prose in ## Validation and Acceptance populated (per-step
EARS/Gherkin lines are Phase A placeholders), the remaining continuous-log
sections empty, and the Phase-A-populated sections
(## Concrete Steps, ## Idempotence and Recovery) left as Phase A
placeholders that decomposition will fill. The canonical section list and lifecycle
table — which writer touches which section in which phase — live in
conventions-execution.md§2.1; the verbatim ready-to-paste
template body is reproduced below so this SKILL stays
self-sufficient (the lifecycle source is durable; the design-doc
copy is ephemeral and removed in the Phase 4 cleanup commit, so it
cannot be a durable pointer target).
Before writing this template, substitute the resolved 40-character
SHA into the $WORKFLOW_SHA placeholder on line 1.
<!-- workflow-sha: $WORKFLOW_SHA -->
# Track N: <title>
## Purpose / Big Picture
<One-lineBLUFstatingtheuser-visiblebehaviorgainedafterthistracklands.>
<!-- Reserved for Move 2 — ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED triad. Empty until Move 2 lands. -->
<Introparagraphfromtheplanchecklistentry, restatedheresothefileisself-sufficient — PhaseB/Csub-agentsthatdon'treadtherootplanseeit.>
## Progress
- [ ] Review + decomposition
- [ ] Step implementation
- [ ] Track-level code review
- [ ] Track completion
## Surprises & Discoveries
<!-- Continuous-log. Promoted by the orchestrator from per-step "What was
discovered" when the finding affects future steps or other tracks. Empty
at Phase 1. -->
## Decision Log
<!-- The track-canonical live decision carrier (D7). Phase 1 seeds the full
inline Decision Records this track owns (full four-bullet form below); the
section then continues as the execution-time continuous log (inline-replan
choices, scope-downs, dependency reveals, gate-override reasons). Seeded
from the frozen design.md D-records in `full`, from the research log in
`lite`/`minimal`. One block per decision: -->
#### D<N>: <Decisiontitle>
- **Alternatives considered**: <whatelsewasonthetable>
- **Rationale**: <whythisoptionwon — trade-offs, constraints>
- **Risks/Caveats**: <knowndownsidesorthingstowatch>
- **Implemented in**: this track (step references added during execution)
<!-- Optional in `full` only: a `**Full design**: design.md §<section>`
line pointing at the frozen seed's mechanism — historical provenance, never
a substitute for the inline record above. -->
## Outcomes & Retrospective
<!-- Continuous-log. Review iteration outcomes and the track-completion
summary at Phase C. -->
## Context and Orientation
<Whatstatethecodebaseisinatthestartofthistrack — files,
modules, non-obviousterminology, concretedeliverablesthistrackproduces.Placeanyoptionaltrack-levelMermaidcomponentdiagram
(≤10nodes) insidethissectionwhenthetrackhas3+ internalcomponentswithnon-trivialinteractions.>
## Plan of Work
<Prosesequenceofeditsandadditions — theapproach, orderingconstraints, invariantstopreserve, referencestotheConcreteStepsrosterbelow.Phase1writestheapproachprose; PhaseAappendsaper-stepsequencingsummarythatreferencestheConcreteStepsroster.>
## Concrete Steps
<!-- Phase A placeholder — decomposition writes a thin numbered
roster here: one entry per step with description, `risk:` tag, an
optional `size:` clause, and a `[ ]` status checkbox. The `size:`
clause (`— size: ~N files; <reason>`) appears only on an under-filled
`low`/`medium` step (rule in `track-review.md` §Step Decomposition).
Per-step episodes do NOT live here; they live in `## Episodes` below.
The roster is immutable after Phase A except for the status checkbox
flip and the optional `commit:` annotation Phase B appends. -->
## Episodes
<!-- Continuous-log. Phase B sub-step 7 appends one block per
completed step, identified by step number + commit SHA. Empty at
Phase 1; Phase A does not populate. -->
## Validation and Acceptance
<Track-levelbehavioralacceptancecriteria.>
<!-- Phase A placeholder for per-step EARS/Gherkin lines. -->
<!-- Reserved for Move 3 — EARS or Gherkin acceptance lines used
verbatim as test method names. Empty until Move 3 lands. -->
## Idempotence and Recovery
<!-- Phase A placeholder — names per-step idempotence and recovery
paths once steps are decomposed. -->
## Artifacts and Notes
<!-- Continuous-log (rare). Cross-step artifact references that don't
belong to one specific step. Per-step episode content lives in
`## Episodes` above. Often empty. -->
## Interfaces and Dependencies
<In-scopeandout-of-scopefileboundaries, compatibilityrequirements, inter-trackdependencies (whichothertrackssupplyprerequisites; whichdownstreamtracksconsumethisone'soutput),
library/functionsignaturesrelevanttothistrack, andtheIntegrationPointstheplan'sArchitectureNotescarried (D9foldsthemhere — entrypoints, SPIs, callbacks, eventflows).>
## Invariants & Constraints
<!-- Plan-at-start, combined section (D9). Phase 1 writes both the
per-track testable constraints (technical, performance, compatibility —
the old plan `### Constraints`) and the testable invariants the plan's
Architecture Notes carried; they share this home because they are the
same shape — a property that must hold, backed by a test (each invariant
becomes a test assertion in the relevant step). A process-only,
non-testable constraint goes to `## Context and Orientation`, or to
`## Decision Log` when it is a real decision — not here. Non-Goals move to
the research log and the PR `## Motivation` (and `design.md` in `full`);
per-track out-of-scope already lives in `## Interfaces and Dependencies`. -->
- <Invariantorconstraintthatmusthold> — verified by <test>.
The ## Base commit section is added by Phase B at session start
and is omitted from the Phase 1 skeleton. Full lifecycle for every
section above is tabulated in conventions-execution.md§2.1.
Decide plan presence from the authored track count (D1). Now that the
track files exist, decide whether implementation-plan.md is written:
implementation-plan.md exists iff the change spans more than one track
(D8a). A cross-track Component Map and Checklist are vacuous for a single
track, so a one-track change writes no plan — only its one
plan/track-1.md and the ledger carry its Phase-1 state. A multi-track change
writes the thinned derived-mirror plan above alongside its track files. This
decision is made here, at the end of Step 4b, not up front: the track count is
not knowable until the planner has decomposed the change, so the
plan-presence question can only be answered once the track files are authored
(D1). The authored track count is the --tracks value seeded into the ledger
just below — the resume router's plan-presence signal.
Seed the phase ledger (D6/D10). After the track files (and, for a
multi-track change, the plan) are written and before the Step 5 commit, seed
the phase ledger with the Phase-1 boundary so a later /execute-tracks
session resumes off the ledger rather than re-running research and
classification. The ledger is the resume-state home for every change — the
one artifact a plan-less single-track change keeps now that it has no plan
(D2/D3). Append one event line with workflow-startup-precheck.sh --append-ledger, recording the confirmed design gate, the authored track
count, the Phase-1-complete marker, the matched categories, and (when the
plan declares workflow-modifying) the §1.7 staging mode; the phase is 0
because the next gate is the State-0 autonomous plan review, which has not yet
run (workflow.md § Startup Protocol, phase == "0"):
# Parse the `level=` token from the statusline file (the same read the# `## Progress` / `## Episodes` writers use per conventions-execution.md §2.1);# default to `safe` when the file is missing.
CTX_LEVEL="$(sed -n 's/.*level=\([a-z]*\).*/\1/p' \
"/tmp/claude-code-context-usage-$PPID.txt" 2>/dev/null)"
[ -n "$CTX_LEVEL" ] || CTX_LEVEL="safe"
.claude/scripts/workflow-startup-precheck.sh --append-ledger \
--ctx "$CTX_LEVEL" \
--phase 0 \
--design-gate "<the design_gate value confirmed in Step 4 part 1>" \
--tracks "<count of plan/track-*.md files just authored>" \
--phase1-complete yes \
--categories "<comma-separated centrally-matched HIGH-risk categories, or empty>"# add --s17 with the staging-mode token only when the plan declares# workflow-modifying or takes the §1.7 prose-rule opt-out (conventions.md# §1.7(b)/(k) — the marker home is this ledger field, D4). Omit otherwise.
--design-gate carries the Step-4 part-1 classifier's confirmed value;
--tracks carries the authored track count (1 for a single-track change,
1 for a multi-track change — the plan-presence signal the resume router
reads, decided at the end of Step 4b just above); --phase1-complete yes
records that Phase 1 finished cleanly, which is the marker the resume router
uses to tell the design+single-track steady state apart from a mid-authoring
crash. The --ctx value is the current context level (safe / info /
warning / critical) parsed from the statusline file; omit --ctx to let
the script default it to safe. The append is atomic (temp-file-plus-rename)
and loud: a malformed field value exits 3 and a write error exits non-zero
with a stderr diagnostic, so check the exit status — a zero exit means the
boundary is recorded (conventions.md§1.1Phase ledger; the grammar and
key set { phase, track, design_gate, tracks, phase1_complete, reconciled_tag, substate, categories, s17, paused } are pinned in the script header). The
phase vocabulary is exactly {0, A, C, D, Done}; create-plan only ever
writes phase 0. Track is omitted at Phase 1 (the ledger names no active
track until Phase C; the plan-less single-track resume defaults the active
track to track-1). The ledger file itself
(_workflow/phase-ledger.md) is unstamped (D13, §1.6(f)) and is swept
Diese SKILL.md ist sehr gross, daher zeigt SkillsMP hier nur den ersten Abschnitt.Auf GitHub ansehen
design.md
design.md
full
lite
minimal
edit-design/SKILL.md
Per round, run the pair, then evaluate dual-clean. Each round spawns the
cold readability-auditor (range-sliced fan-out, one spawn per slice,
sequenced behind the cache warm-up) and the warm absorption-check, then the
round is dual-clean when neither returns a blocker or should-fix
finding:
The readability-auditor (subagent_type: readability-auditor,
description: "Readability audit (Step-4b round <N>)") audits the track
prose with target=tracks and a slice range per spawn. Slice the
track-path fan-out per track file: one readability-auditor spawn per
plan/track-N.md (in track-number order), its params file carrying
target=tracks, target_path set to that one track file, and a
whole-file range (line 1 to the file's last line). This per-file fan-out
omitsslice_count and total_lines — those two params are passed only
on the design-path creation-kind fan-out, so the agent-side whole-doc guard
stays inert on the track path (per readability-auditor.md § The whole-doc
guard, the guard applies only when both params are present). The single
(target_path, range) slice model that edit-design/SKILL.md § Step 4
defines for the design path (one ~200-line window in the single
design.md) does not partition N track files on its own; this per-file
rule is the deterministic partition, so every orchestrator run produces
the same set of slices and the same per-slice anchor visibility. The
standing anchors fill the cross-file vocabulary a single-file slice
lacks: with target=tracks they are the plan Component Map and each
track's ## Purpose / Big Picture (the design-path anchors
## Overview and ## Core Concepts do not exist on the track path). It
owns the prose AI-tell axis on this surface (S4) and reads no log (S1).
Its too-terse findings become the next round's author flagged_passages.
The absorption-check (subagent_type: absorption-check,
description: "Absorption check (Step-4b round <N>)") is the second
check: a separate spawn, not a clause inside the comprehension gate. Its
params file carries target=tracks, research_log_path set to the
research log, and draft_path set to the plan/directory (a directory,
not a single file: the absorption check reads every plan/track-N.md## Decision Log under it, per absorption-check.md § Inputs), plus
design_path set to the frozen design.md in full. It two-way
coverage-matches the load-bearing research-log (or, in full, design.md
seed) decisions against each track's ## Decision Log records: a
load-bearing decision missing from the tracks is a finding, and a track
record inventing a decision the log lacks is a finding that re-opens the S3
gate (below) when it is load-bearing, exactly as a decision-shaped
comprehension finding does. It carries design_path only as that seed
decision source; the seed↔track fidelity criterion is owned by the
comprehension gate (below), so the absorption check does not run it.
A round that is not dual-clean re-spawns the author with the auditor's
flagged passages and any absorption log-missing-from-draft decision to seed,
then re-runs the pair. The loop is bounded by iteration_budget (default 3)
and exits to the user on budget exhaustion (S5), the same termination
contract the Step 4 part 2 gate and edit-design/SKILL.md § Step 6 carry —
the cap is restated here so the loop carries its own termination rather than
borrowing it across skills.
Cross-round convergence: the same mechanism, parameterized. The track
path runs the identical cross-round convergence mechanism the design path
does — edit-design/SKILL.md § Step 6 "The canonical convergence mechanism
(section-keyed settled-state)" is the canonical statement; this loop
cross-references it rather than restating it. Apply it with the track-path
parameters: the settled-state key is per track-N.md file (not per
## / # Part section as on the design path), and the standing-anchor
set the anchor-folded content hash folds in is the plan Component Map plus
each track's ## Purpose / Big Picture (not ## Overview + ## Core Concepts). Fold in only the track-path anchors that exist, mirroring the
design-path "when present" tolerance: each track's ## Purpose / Big Picture,
plus the Component Map when the plan carries one. An absent Component Map on a
thin minimal plan is not an error and does not force a re-audit by itself —
the hash simply folds fewer anchors. A track that returned clean and is
unchanged (its anchor-folded hash matches last round) has its re-flags dropped;
a Component Map edit re-opens every track's settled-state, the same way an
Overview edit does on the design path. The standing anchors are byte-stable
for the loop's
duration — items 1-8 settle the plan Component Map and the track skeletons
before this item's dual-clean loop runs — so the hash does not churn (this
holds in lite / minimal too: the Component Map is not still in flux
during the loop). This adds only the convergence-mechanism cross-
reference. The slicing unit stays per-file as already stated above — one
readability-auditor spawn per plan/track-N.md, whole-file range; do not
read this as "apply the same partition," which is the design-path per-window
rule that does not partition N track files.
The gate-A7 warm-up deferral (inherited from Track 1). The fan-out cache
warm-up is a cost lever, not a correctness dependency: the loop must produce
correct dual-clean output with the warm-up disabled (the disabled path just
pays N cold prefixes). When the harness offers no non-blocking fixed-delay
mechanism, disable the warm-up; Step-4b acceptance does not require a working
warm-up.
The S3 freeze-order gate, then the comprehension gate. After the inner
loop reports dual-clean, hold the S3 freeze-order gate across the loop
before running the comprehension gate: the comprehension gate must not run
while a log-adversarial entry is open. Read the research log's
## Adversarial gate record (the gate's durable verdict carrier; the
open/resolved and latest-dated-entry rules are in research.md §The research
log under Gate-record cadence), and run the comprehension gate only when the
latest entry is resolved (the same ordering edit-design/SKILL.md § The S3
freeze-order gate applies on the design path). Then spawn the de-warmed
comprehension-review gate once (subagent_type: comprehension-review,
description: "Cold comprehension gate (Step-4b track cold-read)"). Its
params file carries the ## Inputs it forwards to
prompts/design-review.md (target=tracks, scope=whole-doc,
plan_dir, and plan_path, plus design_path in full for the full-tier
seed↔track fidelity criterion) and names noresearch_log_path and
nooutput_path: the absorption cross-check moved off this role onto the
absorption-check spawn above, so the comprehension reviewer runs no prose
axis (S4) and no absorption cross-check, and with no output_path it returns
its verdict inline. The Step-4b gate omits the output_path file-write
branch that phase4-creation uses (edit-design/SKILL.md § Step 4)
deliberately: its return is the bounded comprehension verdict plus a
summary-shaped ## Structural findings list, not the long-form structural
detail phase4-creation persists, so the inline return stays small even
on a wide full surface of N track files plus the frozen design.md. A decision-shaped comprehension-gate finding re-opens the
S3 gate and re-enters the inner loop (the author seeds the surfaced decision,
the absorption check confirms coverage, the auditor re-checks the prose), so
the comprehension gate re-runs only once the gate clears again. A
comprehension-gate re-open consumes a round of the same iteration_budget
the inner loop counts down — it does not start a fresh count. The
dual-clean inner-loop rounds and any gate re-entries share one budget, so the
whole Step-4b review is bounded by iteration_budget total rounds across
both; this is the single-budget reading edit-design/SKILL.md § Step 6
settles on the design path, restated locally so the loop's termination is
fully self-contained rather than borrowed across skills.
The whole Step-4b review therefore exits when the inner loop is dual-clean
and the comprehension gate passes, or the budget is spent. The written
plan and tracks are then presented for the user's pre-persist confirmation,
which is the presentation D15's review window opens at.
