| name | methodology-check |
| description | For any artifact ID, report which of the EPIC-001 4-layer pipeline layers (S10 FPF design,
S11 BMAD quality gate, S12 OpenSpec structure, S13 Forgeplan automation) are satisfied and
which need work. Also checks C4 coverage for ≥3-module architectural decisions. Returns a
per-layer score 0-2 + aggregate percentage + concrete action items per gap. Read-only — never
auto-fixes, never writes to forgeplan. Use before activating any Standard+ artifact as a final
sanity check.
Triggers: "methodology check", "check methodology", "4-layer coverage", "layer report",
"/methodology-check", "проверь методологии", "layer coverage", "pipeline check",
"coverage report", "method check"
|
| origin | forgeplan |
/methodology-check — 4-Layer Pipeline Coverage Report
For any forgeplan artifact, this skill reports which of the EPIC-001 methodology layers are
satisfied and which need attention. The output is a structured markdown table with a per-layer
0-2 score plus concrete action items for every gap found.
Read-only contract: this skill never calls forgeplan_update, never writes files, and never
dispatches other agents. It reports; the user or orchestrator decides what to do.
Foundation: EPIC-001 «4-Layer Pipeline Enforcement (S10→S13)» — Sprints Z6-Z10.
When to use
- Before calling
forgeplan_activate on any Standard+ artifact — final sanity check.
- When a PR reviewer or guardian flags methodology gaps — get a diagnostic.
- Periodic audit: run against a set of active PRDs to find which need backfill work.
- User asks «is PRD-NNN fully covered?», «does this ADR meet all layers?», «methodology check».
When NOT to use
- Tactical-depth artifacts — only S12 + S13 apply;
N/A is already the correct answer for S10/S11.
- Auto-fixing: if a gap is found, dispatch the appropriate agent (see action items in the report).
- Checking test coverage, code coverage, or linting — that is
tester / code-reviewer territory.
Procedure
Step 1 — Parse target
Accept the artifact ID from the skill invocation argument or from the user's message. Supported
kinds: PRD-NNN, RFC-NNN, ADR-NNN, EPIC-NNN, SPEC-NNN.
If no ID is provided, ask the user:
«Which artifact would you like to check? (e.g. PRD-061, ADR-007, RFC-002)»
Step 2 — Fetch artifact
artifact = forgeplan_get(id=<target>)
Extract and record:
artifact.status — draft / active / stale / superseded / deprecatedartifact.depth — tactical / standard / deep / criticalartifact.body — full body for inline parsingartifact.links — all linked artifact IDs (via the links field or by parsing ## Related Artifacts in body)artifact.kind — prd / rfc / adr / epic / spec
If forgeplan_get fails (artifact not found) → stop and report:
ERROR: Artifact <target> not found in the forgeplan workspace.
Step 3 — Identify applicable layers
Build the layer checklist based on depth and kind:
| Layer | When applicable |
|---|
| S12 OpenSpec (structure) | Always — every artifact |
| S13 Forgeplan (automation) | Always — every artifact |
| S10 FPF (design) | depth = standard / deep / critical |
| S11 BMAD (quality gate) | depth = standard / deep / critical |
| C4 (architecture extension) | ADR or RFC kind, AND body contains ≥3 distinct module references |
| RIPER (production-bug discipline) | Bug-fix artifact (EVID/PRD whose body, title, or parent links indicate production bug / incident / regression / race condition / SEV-1/SEV-2/P0/P1) AND depth is non-tactical |
For tactical depth: mark S10, S11, and RIPER as N/A in the report (not required).
Record the applicable layer set. This drives Steps 5-10.
Step 4 — Fetch linked EVIDs
From the artifact links (or by scanning the body for EVID-NNN patterns), collect all referenced
evidence IDs. Fetch each:
for evid_id in linked_evid_ids:
evid = forgeplan_get(id=evid_id)
If no EVIDs are linked at all → S10=0 and S11=0 immediately (skip detailed checks for both).
Step 5 — S10 FPF check (design layer)
Skip if: depth=tactical (mark N/A).
Look in each linked EVID body for ADI hypothesis markers:
## Hypotheses considered### H1 / ### H2 / ### H3 (or ### Hypothesis 1 etc.)**H1:** / **H2:** / **H3:** bold-pattern inlineforgeplan_reason output block (heading ## ADI Cycle or ## FPF Reasoning)
Count distinct hypothesis mentions across ALL linked EVIDs. A hypothesis is distinct if it
describes a different option/approach, not just a repeated mention.
Scoring:
| Hypotheses found | Score | Status |
|---|
| ≥3 distinct hypotheses in any EVID | 2 | ✅ SATISFIED |
| 1-2 hypotheses found | 1 | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| 0 hypotheses found | 0 | ❌ BLOCKER |
Record which EVID (if any) contains the hypotheses.
Step 6 — S11 BMAD check (quality gate layer)
Skip if: depth=tactical (mark N/A).
Among all linked EVIDs, look for Profile B reviewer evidence. Identify a Profile B EVID by any
of these markers in the EVID body:
- Text «Profile B reviewer» or «Profile B»
- Title containing «BMAD review», «adversarial review», «quality review»
- Bold verdict pattern
**Verdict**: PASS / **Verdict**: CONCERNS / **Verdict**: BLOCKER
For each candidate Profile B EVID, check:
- Does the body contain a
## Findings section?
- Does it have ≥1 line item under
## Findings?
- Is a verdict (
PASS / CONCERNS / BLOCKER) explicitly stated?
Scoring:
| Condition | Score | Status |
|---|
≥1 Profile B EVID + ## Findings (≥1 item) + explicit verdict | 2 | ✅ SATISFIED |
Profile B EVID exists but ## Findings is empty or absent | 1 | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| No Profile B EVID found at all | 0 | ❌ BLOCKER |
Record the EVID ID and verdict if found.
Step 7 — S12 OpenSpec check (structure layer)
Count inbound + outbound links for the target artifact. Links can come from:
- The
links field in the forgeplan_get response
- The
## Related Artifacts table in the body
- Any
EPIC-NNN, PRD-NNN, RFC-NNN, ADR-NNN reference with a relation word
(«refines», «informs», «based_on», «supersedes», «parent»)
Delta-spec check (for superseded artifacts or artifacts with a supersedes link):
Look for ## Delta-spec in the body — or the four sub-sections:
### ADDED### MODIFIED### REMOVED### UNCHANGED
Scoring:
| Condition | Score | Status |
|---|
≥1 link present AND (no supersede, OR supersede + ## Delta-spec present) | 2 | ✅ SATISFIED |
≥1 link present BUT supersede detected without ## Delta-spec | 1 | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| Artifact is orphan (0 links) | 0 | ❌ BLOCKER |
Record the link count and whether delta-spec is present.
Step 8 — S13 Forgeplan check (automation layer)
Run:
validation = forgeplan_validate(id=<target>)
score = forgeplan_score(id=<target>)
Parse:
validation.status — PASS / FAIL / WARNINGSscore.r_eff — effective readiness score (float 0.0–1.0)
Scoring:
| Condition | Score | Status |
|---|
| validate PASS + r_eff > 0 | 2 | ✅ SATISFIED |
| validate PASS + r_eff = 0 | 1 | ⚠️ PARTIAL (likely forgeplan#325 leaf-EVID gap) |
| validate FAIL | 0 | ❌ BLOCKER |
Note: r_eff=0 on a leaf EVID is a known cosmetic issue (forgeplan#325). Flag as PARTIAL, not BLOCKER,
unless the artifact is a PRD/RFC/ADR (not EVID itself) and r_eff=0 — that indicates missing child
evidence and is a genuine gap.
Step 9 — C4 check (conditional — architectural decisions only)
Apply when: kind is adr or rfc AND the body contains ≥3 distinct module references.
Module detection heuristic — scan body for patterns:
### Module (heading prefix)**Module <name>** bold patternmodule X / service X / component X (case-insensitive, where X is a proper noun)- Named items in a
## Components or ## Modules or ## Services section
If ≥3 distinct module/service/component names are found → C4 check applies.
C4 file detection:
- Look for a relative link to
docs/c4/ in the body (e.g. docs/c4/ADR-NNN.md)
- Check body for C4 diagram markers:
```mermaid block containing flowchart or C4Context
- Look for
## C4 Diagrams section or reference to /c4-diagram skill
Scoring:
| Condition | Score | Status |
|---|
| C4 file referenced OR mermaid C4 block present in body | 2 | ✅ SATISFIED |
| C4 mentioned in prose but no file/diagram found | 1 | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
| ≥3 modules detected but no C4 mention at all | 0 | ❌ MISSING |
| <3 modules detected | N/A | — |
Step 10 — RIPER check (production-bug discipline)
Apply when: the target artifact (or its parent PRD/EVID) is a bug-fix artifact for a non-trivial production bug, AND depth is non-tactical. Detect via any of these signals in the artifact title, body, or parent PRD body:
- Title or body mentions:
production bug, prod bug, incident, postmortem, post-mortem, outage, regression, race condition, SEV-1, SEV-2, P0, P1, продакшн баг, прод баг, гонка, регрессия, инцидент.
- Parent PRD links to an incident / outage / postmortem context.
- Artifact
kind=evidence whose linked parent matches the row 4 of smith routing-map (Bug fix — production, non-trivial).
Skip if: artifact is a trivial hotfix (matches typo, off-by-one, broken link, hotfix, опечатка, хотфикс, single-line fix) — RIPER overhead exceeds value. Mark RIPER as N/A in the report.
Scoring: per linked EVID (or the artifact body itself if kind=evidence), inspect for RIPER Research-mode discipline. Two accepted forms — the contract-conformant form (RFC-018, ADR-010 instance #4) and the legacy form (pre-RFC-018 bug-fix EVIDs):
| Condition | Score | Status |
|---|
Contract form (RFC-018): a standalone Research NOTE + a C4 EVID (from a context distinct from the researcher, e.g. artifact-reviewer) carrying a ## Pinned revision section with verdict SUFFICIENT — the non-freezable Research C4+C6. OR legacy form: a dedicated Research-EVID linked OR a substantive ## Research section in the EVID body (≥10 lines with concrete findings: stack trace, repro steps, suspect commits, hypotheses) | 2 | ✅ SATISFIED |
A ## Pinned revision EVID OR ## Research section is present but stub-quality (≤5 lines, no concrete findings), OR the Research C4 verdict is INSUFFICIENT/BIASED, OR mentioned in prose without a dedicated section | 1 | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
Bug-fix EVID with NO Research NOTE + ## Pinned revision C6 AND no ## Research section AND no linked Research-EVID — code change without documented investigation | 0 | ❌ BLOCKER |
Note (RFC-018): the gold form is now the contract pattern — a Research NOTE pinned by a ## Pinned revision C6 EVID (the non-freezable Research conditional-freeze). The legacy ## Research section remains accepted (backward-compatible) for bug-fix EVIDs created before RFC-018. A Plan/code artifact whose Research pin is stale (the NOTE was edited after the C4 — hash mismatch) scores PARTIAL: re-pin via a fresh C4 before treating it as SATISFIED.
Action item if score <2:
Run /riper (Research mode) before any more code changes on this bug fix. RIPER discipline forbids implementation without a Research artifact — see plugins/fpl-skills/skills/riper/SKILL.md and smith routing-map row 4 (Production bug, non-trivial). Produce a Research NOTE and have a different context (artifact-reviewer) certify it with a ## Pinned revision C6 EVID (or, for a legacy fix, add a substantive ## Research section). Tag the EVID with the methodology label RIPER (production-bug discipline) once it lands.
Record which EVID (if any) carries the Research artifact, and whether the bug was classified trivial (skip) or non-trivial (apply).
Step 11 — Aggregate report
Compute:
- Total score: sum of all applicable layer scores
- Max possible score: 2 × (number of applicable layers, excluding N/A)
- Percentage: (total / max) × 100, rounded to nearest integer
Determine overall verdict:
| Percentage | Verdict |
|---|
| 100% | ✅ COMPLETE |
| 75-99% | STRONG |
| 50-74% | ⚠️ NEEDS WORK |
| 25-49% | ❌ WEAK |
| <25% | ❌ FAIL |
If ANY layer scores 0 (BLOCKER) → append — BLOCKED to the verdict regardless of percentage.
Output report format
## /methodology-check report for <ARTIFACT-ID>
**Title**: <artifact title>
**Status**: <status> | **Depth**: <depth> | **Kind**: <kind>
| Layer | Status | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---:|---|
| S10 FPF (design) | ✅ | 2/2 | EVID-NNN: 3 hypotheses (H1/H2/H3) |
| S11 BMAD (quality gate) | ⚠️ | 1/2 | EVID-MMM exists but ## Findings is empty |
| S12 OpenSpec (structure) | ✅ | 2/2 | 3 links (refines EPIC-001, informs PRD-XXX, based_on ADR-YYY) |
| S13 Forgeplan (automation) | ✅ | 2/2 | validate PASS + r_eff=0.95 |
| C4 (arch extension) | N/A | — | <3 modules detected |
| RIPER (production-bug discipline) | N/A | — | not a bug-fix artifact |
### Overall: 7/8 (87%) — STRONG
### Action items
- ⚠️ **S11**: EVID-MMM `## Findings` is empty — dispatch `agents-pro:artifact-reviewer` with adversarial mandate. See [BMAD discipline](../../../CLAUDE.md#bmad-adversarial-review-discipline).
- ℹ️ **S10**: 3 hypotheses present — satisfactory. Consider a 4th edge-case hypothesis if relevant.
### Activation readiness
- ✅ Ready to activate once S11 gap is resolved.
- Blockers preventing activation: 0 hard blockers (S11 is CONCERNS, not BLOCKER).
Zero-EVID case (no evidence linked at all):
## /methodology-check report for PRD-NNN
**Title**: ...
**Status**: draft | **Depth**: standard | **Kind**: prd
| Layer | Status | Score | Detail |
|---|---|---:|---|
| S10 FPF (design) | ❌ | 0/2 | No EVIDs linked — ADI cycle required |
| S11 BMAD (quality gate) | ❌ | 0/2 | No EVIDs linked — Profile B review required |
| S12 OpenSpec (structure) | ❌ | 0/2 | Orphan — no links to any artifact |
| S13 Forgeplan (automation) | ❌ | 0/2 | validate FAIL — no evidence |
| C4 (arch extension) | N/A | — | Not an architectural decision |
| RIPER (production-bug discipline) | N/A | — | Not a bug-fix artifact |
### Overall: 0/8 (0%) — ❌ FAIL — BLOCKED
### Action items
- ❌ **S10**: Run `forgeplan_reason PRD-NNN` (MCP) or `/fpf-reason` skill (interactive). Create EVID with ≥3 hypotheses + ADI cycle. See [FPF ADI discipline](../../../CLAUDE.md#fpf-adi-discipline).
- ❌ **S11**: After S10, dispatch `agents-pro:artifact-reviewer` for adversarial review. EVID body MUST contain `## Findings` with ≥1 item. See [BMAD discipline](../../../CLAUDE.md#bmad-adversarial-review-discipline).
- ❌ **S12**: Link this artifact to its parent Epic or context PRD via `forgeplan_link`. Use relation `refines`, `informs`, or `based_on`.
- ❌ **S13**: After evidence linked, run `forgeplan_validate PRD-NNN` — must return PASS before activating.
### Activation readiness
- ❌ NOT ready to activate — 4 blockers found.
Hard rules
- Never auto-fix layer violations — this skill reports only. The user or orchestrator decides what dispatch to make based on action items.
- Read-only on the target artifact — do NOT call
forgeplan_update, forgeplan_link, forgeplan_new, or any mutation tool.
- Tactical artifacts get reduced layer check — depth=tactical only checks S12+S13. S10, S11, and RIPER are marked
N/A (not a gap, not scored).
- C4 check is heuristic — false positives (detecting "service" in a non-architectural context) are possible. If the C4 heuristic fires unexpectedly, note it in the report and let the user confirm.
- RIPER check is heuristic — the bug-fix signal is keyword-based (production / incident / SEV-1/2 / race condition / regression). If the heuristic fires unexpectedly (e.g. the word "regression" appearing in a statistical context, not a bug context), note the suspect signal in the report and let the user override to N/A.
- r_eff=0 on leaf EVID is cosmetic — do not flag it as a hard BLOCKER for the parent PRD. Note the forgeplan#325 upstream issue.
- One invocation per artifact — do not recursively check linked artifacts (e.g. do not run methodology-check on the linked EVIDs). This is a flat one-artifact report.
Error handling
| Error | Response |
|---|
forgeplan_get not found | Stop. Report ERROR: <ID> not found. |
forgeplan_validate unavailable | Mark S13 as ⚠️ PARTIAL with note «forgeplan_validate unavailable». |
forgeplan_score unavailable | Mark r_eff as unknown; degrade S13 score to 1 if validate PASS. |
No links field in artifact | Fall back to scanning body for EVID-NNN, PRD-NNN patterns. |
| EVID body fetch fails | Mark that EVID as «body unavailable»; use what remains. |
Companion skills and references
/supersede — use after S12 gap: creates delta-spec-compliant successor./decay-watch — scan all active ADRs for fired revisit triggers./decision — record a new decision; run /methodology-check after.agents-pro:artifact-reviewer — dispatch for S11 BMAD adversarial review.forgeplan_reason <ID> — generate ADI hypothesis cycle (S10 FPF)./riper — RIPER orchestrator (Research → Innovate → Plan → Execute → Review); dispatch after a RIPER score <2 on a production-bug artifact.- EPIC-001 — canonical 4-layer pipeline definition.
- PRD-066 — RIPER auto-routing for production bugs (Step 10 of this skill).
- CLAUDE.md
## FPF ADI discipline, ## BMAD adversarial review discipline, ## OpenSpec delta-spec discipline, ## C4 diagrams for ≥3-module architectural decisions — detailed rules per layer.
Anti-patterns
- ❌ Running
/methodology-check then auto-dispatching fixes — the skill surfaces gaps; a human or orchestrator with ADI gate decides what to do. Blind auto-dispatch wastes agent turns on gaps that may be intentionally deferred.
- ❌ Using score as a merge gate — methodology-check is advisory. Guardian does the formal gate (guardian reads EVID directly; it doesn't call this skill).
- ❌ Reporting score=0 for tactical artifacts on S10/S11 — tactical artifacts don't require ADI or adversarial review. Correct behaviour: N/A, not BLOCKER.
- ❌ Calling forgeplan_validate without handling WARNINGS gracefully — WARNINGS from validate are not FAIL. Map them to S13=1 (PARTIAL), not S13=0 (BLOCKER).
- ❌ Counting the same hypothesis twice — H1 mentioned in EVID-001 and re-quoted in EVID-002 counts as 1, not 2. De-duplicate by content, not by occurrence.
