alignment

name	alignment
description	Solution direction synthesis — design opinions from research findings, presented for human correction, with decision capture. Invoke whenever task involves the A stage of the DRAFT pipeline, aligning on approach before implementation, or recording design decisions.

Alignment

Declare every pattern you intend to follow and every design opinion you've formed — explicitly, with evidence and reasoning — so the human can correct them before implementation begins. Research produces facts; alignment is where you form and surface opinions for correction.

Prerequisites

Locate the inputs:

1. Brief — check conversation context first; fall back to design-docs/NN-name.brief.md; if absent, ask whether to run discovery.
2. Research — check conversation context first; fall back to design-docs/NN-name.research.md; if absent, ask whether to run research.
3. Glossary — load docs/glossary.md if present. If absent (first iteration), schedule creation at Phase 3 end (see Glossary maintenance below).

Process

Phase 1 — Synthesize

1. Read the brief, research, and glossary (if present).
2. From research, extract:
   • Codebase patterns with prevalence (dominant convention vs isolated instance).
   • Integration points and boundaries relevant to the brief's goals.
3. From the brief, extract:
   • Motivation, desired end state, constraints, non-goals.
   • Flagged term ambiguities — unresolved terms discovery surfaced for alignment to resolve.
   • Not-yet-specified items — unknowns discovery could not yet phrase as precise questions. Check each against the research findings: graduate the ones research has sharpened into open questions for Phase 3; carry the rest into the alignment document unchanged.
4. From the glossary, extract:
   • Canonical vocabulary to use throughout alignment.
   • Definitions that constrain pattern choices (e.g., "Customer owns CustomerId" forbids cross-context FKs).
5. Form opinions: which patterns to follow, which to deviate from, and why.

Phase 2 — Surface Patterns

Present patterns you intend to follow as a structured block:

• Pattern: [what]
• Found in: [where, prevalence — e.g., "12/15 files in internal/auth/"]
• Intend to follow: yes / no / partially
• Reason: [why]

After presenting, ask: "Any patterns to reject or modify before I propose the end state?"

Iterate until the user confirms the pattern set. Do not proceed to Phase 3 until patterns are reviewed.

**Patterns I intend to follow:**

• Pattern: Service classes suffixed with *Handler

• Found in: 8/10 files in internal/api/ — dominant convention

• Intend to follow: yes

• Reason: Consistent with codebase; deviating creates naming inconsistency.

• Pattern: Raw SQL queries in repository layer

• Found in: 3/12 files in internal/data/ — minority pattern

• Intend to follow: no

• Reason: Dominant pattern (9/12 files) uses query builder. Raw SQL files predate its adoption.

• Pattern: Error wrapping with fmt.Errorf("%w", err)

• Found in: 14/14 files — universal

• Intend to follow: yes

• Reason: Consistent, well-established.

Any patterns to reject or modify before I propose the end state?

**User:** "The `*Handler` naming is legacy — new code uses `*Controller`. Check `internal/api/v2/`."

Agent: Updated. Verified *Controller convention in internal/api/v2/. Revised pattern set: [updated list].

Phase 3 — Present End State

With corrected patterns, present:

• Current state — how the affected area works today, derived from research.
• Desired end state — what it should look like after the change, derived from brief + corrected patterns.
• Open questions — anything not determinable from brief and research alone, including not-yet-specified items that graduated during synthesis.

Iterate until end state is clear and all questions are resolved. Not-yet-specified items that remain too dim to phrase stay in the alignment document's Not yet specified section — resolving them is not a gate for completing alignment.

Glossary maintenance. Apply term resolutions the moment they crystallize during Phases 2–3 — a batched cleanup at the end loses the rationale that was live when the term was resolved. Before completing Phase 3, sweep for stragglers:

• If glossary exists: apply term resolutions surfaced in this initiative — sharpen definitions, resolve ambiguities the brief flagged, add new entries that pass the glossary skill's trap test. Invoke the glossary skill for the update.
• If glossary missing (first iteration): invoke the glossary skill to create one from canonical terms used in brief, research, and alignment dialog. The glossary is a sibling artifact, not a section of alignment.md.

Phase 4 — Conditional ADRs

ADRs are standalone files at design-docs/adr/{N.M}-slug.md — never embedded in alignment.md. The number tracks the initiative that birthed the ADR; the ADR itself is system-wide and outlives its parent initiative.

Numbering. Initiative 04-orders-refactor writing its first ADR creates design-docs/adr/4.1-{slug}.md. Second ADR from the same initiative is 4.2-{slug}.md. Different initiatives never collide because the prefix matches the initiative number.

Trigger gate (all three must be true):

1. Hard to reverse — changing the decision later carries meaningful cost.
2. Surprising without context — a future reader will look at the code and ask "why on earth did they do it this way?"
3. Result of a real trade-off — genuine alternatives existed, and one was picked for specific reasons.

If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Easy-to-reverse decisions get reversed; non-surprising ones don't need a record; "we did the obvious thing" isn't worth preserving.

Qualifying types (non-exhaustive — the gate is the test, this list is the catalog):

• Architectural shape. "Write model is event-sourced, read model projects into Postgres."
• Integration patterns between contexts. "Ordering and Billing communicate via domain events, not synchronous HTTP."
• Technology choices that carry lock-in. Database, message bus, auth provider, deployment target — not every library, just the ones that would take a quarter to replace.
• Boundary and scope decisions. "Customer data is owned by the Customer context; others reference by ID only."
• Deliberate deviations from the obvious path. "We use manual SQL instead of an ORM because X."
• Constraints not visible in code. "Response times must stay under 200ms because of partner API contract."
• Rejected alternatives when rejection is non-obvious. Considered GraphQL, picked REST for subtle reasons — record it, or someone re-proposes GraphQL in six months.
• Compliance, legal, regulatory, or security boundary decisions — even when not architecturally surprising.

Explore alternatives before committing (optional). The first workable design anchors — when a genuine trade-off surfaces and no option is clearly right, generate alternatives before asking the user to commit:

1. Write the problem framing — constraints from brief and research, adopted patterns, what any solution must satisfy — and present it to the user.
2. While the user reads, spawn 2–3 parallel subagents via the Agent tool, each designing the same decision under a different bias: follow dominant patterns with minimal change; design the clean target state ignoring migration cost; optimize for operational simplicity. Give each the problem framing; each returns its direction, what it changes, and where its trade-offs bite.
3. Compare the returns on named dimensions, recommend one — or a hybrid — with reasoning. The user picks; the chosen direction feeds the ADR gate below.

Fire this only when a real trade-off exists — routine alignments never need it.

When to prompt. When the dialog surfaces two or more viable approaches and the user expresses uncertainty, ask: "Multiple paths exist — write an ADR to commit to one?" Run the trigger gate before writing — uncertainty isn't enough on its own.

ADR file format:

# {Short title of the decision}

- **Status:** accepted
- **Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
- **Initiative:** {NN-slug}

{1-3 paragraphs: context, what was decided, why.}

A one-paragraph ADR is fine. Status values: accepted | deprecated | superseded by {N.M}. Optional sections (Considered Options, Consequences) only when they add genuine value — most ADRs don't need them.

Write the file, then update the index. After writing design-docs/adr/{N.M}-slug.md, update design-docs/ADR.md:

# ADR Index

## Accepted

- [4.1 Event-sourced write model](./adr/4.1-event-sourced-write-model.md) — initiative `04-orders-refactor`, 2026-05-15
- ...

## Deprecated

- [2.1 ...] — superseded by 4.1

## Superseded

- ...

If design-docs/ADR.md does not exist, create it on the first ADR write. Create design-docs/adr/ lazily on the same write.

Cross-reference from alignment.md. Add a line under ## Recorded ADRs pointing at the ADR file. Do not copy ADR content into alignment.md — the ADR file is the source of truth.

Phase 5 — Write Artifact

1. Compose alignment.md using the document format below.
2. Number prefix: match existing artifacts (NN-name.brief.md / NN-name.research.md), or next available number in design-docs/.
3. Save to design-docs/NN-name.alignment.md.
4. Present to user for final review. Revise if requested.

Transition

On user approval:

Alignment is complete. Proceed to frame?

Alignment Document Format

Target ~150 lines. Exceeding 250 indicates content belongs in the frame stage or in ADR files.

# Alignment: {title from brief}

- **Date:** {date}
- **Brief:** {path or "in conversation context"}
- **Research:** {path or "in conversation context"}
- **Glossary:** {path, or "(created during this alignment)"}

## Patterns Adopted

- **[Pattern name]** — [description]. Found in [location, prevalence]. [Reason.]

## Current State

[How the affected area works today.]

## Desired End State

[Target state, derived from brief + corrected patterns.]

## Resolved Questions

- [Question] → [Resolution]

## Not Yet Specified

(Only when unphrased unknowns remain. In-scope territory future iterations revisit — carried from the brief or surfaced
during alignment, written as loosely as the current view allows.)

- [Unknown — what's dim about it, what would sharpen it]

## Recorded ADRs

(Only when ADRs were written during this alignment. List paths — ADR content lives in the files, not here.)

- [ADR 4.1: Event-sourced write model](./adr/4.1-event-sourced-write-model.md)

Rules

• Surface every opinion. Patterns you intend to follow, deviations you chose, assumptions you made — declare all of them. Silently adopting a pattern is the failure mode this skill exists to prevent.
• Living artifact. alignment.md may be updated throughout development. Immutable only when moved to completed/.
• Always persists to disk. No "skip file" option. Brief and research may live in conversation context; alignment always writes to the filesystem.
• ADRs are standalone files, not alignment sections. Each ADR lives at design-docs/adr/{N.M}-slug.md. The ADR file is the source of truth; alignment.md only references it.
• ADRs outlive their initiative. When the initiative moves to completed/, ADRs stay in design-docs/adr/. Lifecycle is decoupled.
• Update the ADR index on every write. design-docs/ADR.md is the single discoverability surface for ADRs across all initiatives — a stale index is a broken contract.
• Glossary maintenance is alignment's job. Discovery flags ambiguities; alignment resolves them by invoking the glossary skill before Phase 4.
• Complexity is a signal. If the user struggles to answer your questions during alignment, the scope is too large or ill-defined. Push to split or simplify before proceeding — don't paper over the uncertainty.
• Create only. One alignment per initiative. Revise the living artifact directly; formal update mode deferred.