generate

name	generate
description	Phase 2 of the prd-taskmaster pipeline: spec generation and task parsing. Loads a template (comprehensive|minimal), fills it with DISCOVER-phase constraints and answers, validates the spec (placeholders_found, grade thresholds), parses the PRD into tasks via task-master, runs TaskMaster's native complexity analysis, and expands every task into verifiable subtasks. Autonomous-safe. Declares GENERATE complete so HANDOFF can follow.
user-invocable	false
allowed-tools	["Read","Write","Edit","Bash","Skill","ToolSearch","mcp__atlas-engine","mcp__plugin_prd_go","mcp__plugin_prd-taskmaster_go","mcp__plugin_atlas-go_go"]

Phase 2: Generate

Declarative phase skill. Invoked by the prd-taskmaster orchestrator when current_phase is GENERATE. Never called directly by a user.

The one rule: generate the spec, validate it catches placeholders, parse it into tasks, expand every task into subtasks. Quality over speed.

Entry gate

1. Call mcp__plugin_prd_go__check_gate(phase="GENERATE", evidence={}). If the call returns {gate_passed: false, violations: [...]}, report the violations and stop. The gate protects against re-entering a completed phase or skipping ahead from DISCOVER.

   Known issue (Mum dogfood feedback [10] — WORST): check_gate(GENERATE) currently checks task_count > 0, subtask_coverage >= 1.0, and validation_grade in (EXCELLENT, GOOD) — all of which are GENERATE's OWN OUTPUTS, not entry preconditions. First-time entry deadlocks. State machine LEGAL_TRANSITIONS already prevents illegal entry — proceed past this gate on first entry. Semantic fix in flight (see morning brief).

2. Read the DISCOVER output (discovery summary + CONSTRAINTS CAPTURED block

   • scale classification). If any of these are missing, report and stop — the gate should have caught this, but belt-and-braces.

Generate checklist

Copy into your response before running the procedure:

GENERATE CHECKLIST:
- [ ] Template loaded (comprehensive|minimal)
- [ ] Spec written with discovery answers (no bare placeholders remaining)
- [ ] CONSTRAINT CHECK: every DISCOVER constraint appears in the spec
- [ ] SCOPE CHECK: task count matches scale (Solo 8-12, Team 12-20, Enterprise 20-30)
- [ ] Validation score: ___ / ___ (grade: ___)
- [ ] placeholders_found: ___ (bare placeholders = 0 required)
- [ ] Warnings addressed or acknowledged
- [ ] Tasks parsed: ___ tasks created
- [ ] Complexity analyzed via TaskMaster: Y/N
- [ ] All tasks expanded into subtasks: Y/N

Step 1: Choose and load template

Decide based on discovery depth:

• Comprehensive: 4+ detailed answers, complex project, Team / Enterprise scale
• Minimal: thin answers, user wants speed, Solo scale

MCP (preferred): mcp__plugin_prd_go__load_template(type="comprehensive")

CLI fallback: python3 script.py load-template --type comprehensive

The template is the canonical shape — do not invent your own. If the template load fails, report and stop. Do not paper over with a home-rolled skeleton.

Step 2: Generate spec at .taskmaster/docs/prd.md

Fill the template with discovery answers. AI judgment required:

• Replace ALL placeholders with actual content pulled from DISCOVER.
• Expand with project-specific details — do not leave template prose verbatim.
• Add technical depth proportional to what the user provided in discovery.
• Generate domain-appropriate sections (pentest = threat model, app = user stories, business = success metrics, learning = assessment criteria).
• Document assumptions where discovery was thin — explicitly, not silently.

CONSTRAINT CHECK (MANDATORY)

Verify EVERY constraint from the DISCOVER phase CONSTRAINTS CAPTURED block appears in the spec. If "must use Python" was a constraint, the spec MUST reference Python. Missing constraints = spec bug.

Emit the check explicitly:

CONSTRAINT CHECK:
- Tech stack (Python): FOUND in spec section "Technical Stack"
- Timeline (MVP in 2 weeks): FOUND in spec section "Milestones"
- ...

Every constraint must be marked FOUND. If any are MISSING, loop back and fix the spec before proceeding.

SCOPE CHECK (MANDATORY)

Use the scale classification from DISCOVER to set task count range:

Scale	Task Count	Subtask Depth
Solo	8–12	2–3 subtasks each
Team	12–20	3–5 subtasks each
Enterprise	20–30	5–8 subtasks each

If DISCOVER classified the project as Team but the spec implies 30 tasks, that's a scope bug — narrow the spec or re-classify explicitly.

Domain-neutral vocabulary

When the domain is unclear, default to neutral terms:

Software term	Neutral equivalent	When to use neutral
tests	verification criteria	pentest, business, learning
code	deliverable	business, learning
deploy	execute / deliver	business, learning
repo	workspace	non-software
PR	output / submission	non-software

If the domain IS software, use software terms. Neutral terms are for non-software goals.

Deferred decisions — the reason: convention

Every [placeholder], {{variable}}, [TBD], [TODO] must be either:

(a) Replaced with real content, (b) Removed entirely, or (c) Paired with a reason: explanation on the same line or the next line documenting why the decision is deferred.

Per the v4 spec: placeholders with reason: attribution are allowed and surfaced in the validation output as deferred_decisions. A bare placeholder is a validation failure; an attributed one is a known deferred decision with accountability.

Examples:

# BAD — bare placeholder, fails validation:
Target latency: {{TBD}}

# GOOD — attributed, appears in deferred_decisions:
Target latency: {{TBD}} reason: awaiting load-test results scheduled 2026-04-20

Write the final spec to .taskmaster/docs/prd.md. This is the canonical path — downstream tools read from here.

Step 3: Validate spec quality

MCP (preferred): mcp__plugin_prd_go__validate_prd(input_path=".taskmaster/docs/prd.md")

CLI fallback: python3 script.py validate-prd --input .taskmaster/docs/prd.md

Returns: score, grade, checks, warnings, placeholders_found.

Optional AI-augmented review (opt-in): pass --ai (CLI) or ai=True (MCP) to additionally invoke TaskMaster's configured main model for a holistic quality review. The deterministic regex checks always run first — AI review is additive, never a replacement.

Grading thresholds:

• EXCELLENT: 91%+
• GOOD: 83–90%
• ACCEPTABLE: 75–82%
• NEEDS_WORK: <75%

Decision rules:

• If placeholders_found > 0 (bare placeholders, not reason:-attributed): fix before proceeding. No exceptions.
• If grade is NEEDS_WORK: offer auto-fix or proceed-with-risk — do not silently advance. Surface the decision.
• If grade is ACCEPTABLE or better AND placeholders_found == 0: proceed to Step 4.

Step 4: Parse tasks via backend

Calculate task count first:

MCP: mcp__plugin_prd_go__calc_tasks(requirements_count=<count>)

CLI: python3 script.py calc-tasks --requirements <count>

Then parse through the normative backend operation:

backend op parse-prd: python3 script.py parse-prd --input .taskmaster/docs/prd.md --num-tasks <recommended>

TaskMaster backend direct methods (only when explicitly operating that backend):

• MCP: mcp__task-master-ai__parse_prd(input=".taskmaster/docs/prd.md", numTasks=<recommended>)
• MCP fallback: mcp__plugin_prd_go__tm_parse_prd(input_path=".taskmaster/docs/prd.md", num_tasks=<recommended>)
• CLI: task-master parse-prd --input .taskmaster/docs/prd.md --num-tasks <recommended>

The backend operation writes to .taskmaster/tasks/tasks.json. Verify the file exists and contains the expected number of tasks before continuing.

Step 5: Rate complexity via backend

Use the normative backend operation instead of home-rolled classification:

backend op rate: python3 script.py rate

TaskMaster backend direct methods (only when explicitly operating that backend):

• MCP: mcp__task-master-ai__analyze_complexity (analyzes all tasks)
• MCP fallback: mcp__plugin_prd_go__tm_analyze_complexity (wraps the CLI)
• CLI: task-master analyze-complexity

Important — output location: the TaskMasterBackend internal analyze-complexity step does NOT emit JSON to stdout. It writes structured analysis to .taskmaster/reports/task-complexity-report.json and prints a human-readable table to stdout. To read the structured result, read the report file:

cat .taskmaster/reports/task-complexity-report.json | jq .

Do not try to parse the stdout table — it's colour-coded ASCII and will break consumers. TaskMaster's built-in analysis is more accurate than anything hand-rolled because it has full context of the task graph and dependencies.

Step 6: Expand tasks into subtasks (MANDATORY)

Every task MUST be expanded into subtasks before HANDOFF. Subtasks are verifiable checkpoints — without them, tasks are black boxes that either pass or fail with no intermediate proof.

Use backend op expand, NOT bare per-id parallel calls

Per-id parallel calls (e.g. task-master expand --id=1 & task-master expand --id=2 &) hit a non-atomic read-modify-write race on .taskmaster/tasks/tasks.json: every parallel writer reads the same starting snapshot, adds its own subtasks, and writes the whole file back. The last writer wins and earlier writes are silently lost — the AI call reports success, the subtasks were generated, but they never landed on disk. Detected in the v4 Shade dogfood 2026-04-13.

backend op expand is the correct path:

python3 script.py expand

The backend operation chooses the correct implementation. Its TaskMasterBackend.expand internals may use serial native expansion, tm-parallel, or the TaskMaster backend direct methods below. The native/agent path uses agent-parallel planning and atomic apply when direct native API expansion is unavailable.

TaskMaster backend direct methods (only when explicitly operating that backend):

# Preferred: research-enriched expansion (when a research provider is configured)
task-master expand --all --research

# Fallback: structural-only (still valuable; always available)
task-master expand --all

MCP note on expand_task: task-master's MCP currently exposes expand_task(id=...) per-task only. Do NOT call expand_task in parallel across IDs — same race, same data loss. If you must use the MCP, call expand_task serially for every task, or shell out to task-master expand --all via Bash.

Patience under slow providers

Under claude-code (Claude Max rate-limited) or local ollama, --all can run for 5–15 minutes on a 12-task project. Do NOT time out aggressively. Use .taskmaster/tasks/tasks.json mtime as the liveness signal:

• mtime updated within last 60s → work is landing, keep waiting
• mtime stale for 120s+ → investigate (rate limit, provider crash, network)
• Never conclude STUCK from a single capture — always compare two snapshots 30–60s apart

Verify coverage (read tasks.json DIRECTLY, not task-master list)

task-master list --format json has been observed to return a different top-level schema from tasks.json, causing consumers to report 0/N coverage even when all tasks have subtasks on disk (v4 dogfood LEARNING #15). Always read the canonical file directly:

python3 -c "
import json
d = json.load(open('.taskmaster/tasks/tasks.json'))
# tasks.json is tag-grouped (master, defaults, feature branches) — walk all tags
all_tasks = []
if 'master' in d and isinstance(d['master'], dict):
    all_tasks = d['master'].get('tasks', [])
elif 'tasks' in d:
    all_tasks = d['tasks']
else:
    for v in d.values():
        if isinstance(v, dict) and 'tasks' in v:
            all_tasks.extend(v['tasks'])

counts = [len(t.get('subtasks', [])) for t in all_tasks]
covered = sum(1 for c in counts if c > 0)
total = len(all_tasks)
no_subs = [t['id'] for t in all_tasks if not t.get('subtasks')]

if no_subs:
    print(f'WARNING: {covered}/{total} tasks expanded. Missing: {no_subs}. Re-run backend op expand.')
else:
    print(f'OK: All {total} tasks expanded ({sum(counts)} subtasks total).')
"

Idempotent recovery

If any task still shows 0 subtasks after --all completes (rate-limit hiccup, provider timeout, partial run), re-run the same command:

python3 script.py expand

The backend operation only re-expands tasks that are still in pending state with 0 subtasks, so a second invocation is safe and recovers gracefully. Do NOT work around it with parallel per-id calls — that is the exact pattern that causes silent data loss.

Evidence gate

Gate: spec validation grade is ACCEPTABLE+ AND placeholders_found == 0 AND tasks parsed AND complexity analyzed AND all tasks have subtasks in .taskmaster/tasks/tasks.json.

Emit a compact one-block status:

Generate:
  spec: .taskmaster/docs/prd.md (grade: <grade>, score: <n>/<total>)
  placeholders_found: <n> (bare), <m> deferred_decisions
  tasks parsed: <n>
  complexity report: .taskmaster/reports/task-complexity-report.json
  subtask coverage: <n>/<n> tasks expanded (<total> subtasks)

Exit gate

After the evidence gate passes:

1. Call mcp__plugin_prd_go__advance_phase(expected_current="GENERATE", target="HANDOFF", evidence={"validation_grade": "<EXCELLENT|GOOD|ACCEPTABLE>", "task_count": <int>, "subtask_coverage": <float 0-1>, "placeholders_found": <int>}). The call atomically transitions pipeline.json from GENERATE to HANDOFF. The expected_current field is the compare-and-swap guard; evidence is stored under phase_evidence[HANDOFF] for audit.
2. Return control to the orchestrator (prd-taskmaster skill). Do NOT invoke HANDOFF directly — the orchestrator re-reads current_phase and routes.

Red flags (stop and report, do not paper over)

• "The validation says placeholders_found=3 but the content reads fine — I'll advance anyway" → NO. Bare placeholders are a hard fail. Fix or attribute with reason:.
• "task-master expand --all is slow, let me run expand_task in parallel across IDs to speed it up" → NO. That is the exact race that silently drops subtasks. Serial --all or serial per-id only.
• "A constraint from DISCOVER isn't in the spec — I'll add it to the handoff note instead" → NO. Constraints live in the spec. Fix the spec.
• "Complexity analyze output looked odd, I'll skip reading the JSON report" → NO. Read .taskmaster/reports/task-complexity-report.json directly; the stdout table is decoration.
• "I can call advance_phase without check_gate" → NO. Gate first, always.
• "The template prose is close enough, I'll ship it verbatim" → NO. The template is a shape, not content. Fill every section with project-specific material.

Non-exits

This skill does not use explicit process termination. A hard block reports the reason and returns control to the orchestrator; the orchestrator decides whether to surface to the user.