dia-guide

name	dia-guide
description	Guides users through the V-Model workflow: takes stock of the current project state, recommends the next phase skill, audits handoff entries for completeness, and runs the Closing Handoff after a successful security audit. The guide does not perform CRUD work on artifacts; every concrete change lives in the phase skill it dispatches to. TRIGGER when the user asks "where do I start", "what comes next", "I am lost in the workflow", "which phase fits", "wo bin ich gerade", "wo soll ich anfangen", "was kommt jetzt", or explicitly requests the V-Model overview or end-to-end orientation. DO NOT trigger for individual phase work (use the specific phase skill instead: business-analysis, requirements-engineering, architecture, coding, testing, security-audit), generic mentions of "workflow", "process", or "next step" inside an already-running phase skill, or when a phase skill is already active.
disable-model-invocation	false

V-Model Workflow Guide

What this skill does (and does not do)

/dia-guide is the read-only orientation layer of DIA. It:

• Reads BACKLOG.md, the latest HANDOFFS.md entry, and git state when the user invokes it
• Recommends the next phase skill in plain text
• Audits whether the last handoff carries the binding fields (triage:, triage_kind:, epic:, feature:)
• Runs the Closing Handoff after a green /security-audit
• Does the post-/reverse-engineering item promotion (the only CRUD moment the guide owns, because it is a multi-item user interaction at a workflow boundary that no single phase skill covers)

What the guide does NOT do:

• It does not perform artifact triage. Triage lives in every phase skill's MANDATORY Phase 0 block. See skills/project-conventions/references/graph-invariants.md, section "Artifact triage at entry point".
• It does not enforce the plan gate. The plan gate lives in /coding Phase 3a as the "Plan Coverage Gate (binding, runs before Status flips to Active)". /coding runs the gate; the guide only reads the result.
• It does not run /consistency-check mode A at phase boundaries. Each phase skill runs mode A in its own handoff ritual. Mode B fires from the Closing Handoff, see below.
• It does not call other skills. It recommends; the user invokes.

Post-reverse-engineering item promotion (the only CRUD moment)

/reverse-engineering finishes with a backlog seed: 20+ items at Status: Anticipated, Source: REV on a single feature/reverse-engineer-<repo-name> branch. Per-item branches and per-item GitHub issues kick in only after a user-driven triage: which seed items become real backlog candidates? /reverse-engineering explicitly defers this step to the guide (see RE's Pre-Phase 0).

This is the only place where the guide writes. It is a multi-item user interaction at a workflow boundary that no single phase skill covers. The user drives the triage; the guide executes the per-item operations.

Steps:

1. Read BACKLOG.md, list items with Status: Anticipated, Source: REV.
2. AskUserQuestion: which items should be promoted now (vs. left as anticipated for later)?
3. For each promoted item:

   python3 tools/github-integration/flow.py create-issue --item <ID>
   git tag -a <id-lower>/reverse-engineered -m "Item promoted from /reverse-engineering"
   

4. Update BACKLOG row: Status -> Planned (or as appropriate).
5. Recommend the next skill: typically /business-analysis to validate the BA draft, or /coding for items that already ship and just need the inventory recorded.

Handoff state audit (read-only, on user invocation)

When the user invokes /dia-guide after a phase skill has finished, the guide reads the team-workflow surface and reports any drift between artifact state and collaboration state. It does NOT write, fix, or tag. It surfaces, the user decides.

Audited surfaces (full reference: skills/project-conventions/references/team-workflow.md):

1. Branch. Is the current branch on an item-branch (per team-workflow.md schema)? If not, surface a warning.
2. Phase tag. Did the just-finished phase set its <item-id>/<phase>-done tag via tools/github-integration/flow.py tag-phase? Each phase skill is responsible for setting its own tag during its handoff ritual. If missing, the guide names the phase skill that should re-run its handoff ritual.
3. Backlog row. Does the BACKLOG row's status reflect the phase progress (Building during BA -> RE -> Coding, Released only after merge)? Discrepancies indicate the phase skill's handoff ritual did not write the row before the phase-end commit.
4. GitHub issue. Does the issue exist and carry the right phase label and ticked checklist? Each phase skill calls flow.py update-issue in its handoff ritual; the guide reads flow.py status --item <ID> and reports the snapshot.
5. HANDOFFS entry. Does the latest entry have triage:, triage_kind:, and (for IMP/FIX) epic: + feature:? Missing fields are flagged with the responsible phase skill named.

The guide reports findings in plain text and recommends the next step. It does not auto-fix, does not append to METRICS, does not tag, and does not call other skills. METRICS is written by phase skills directly; the guide only reads it.

Feature-complete read (before release)

When the user asks "is this item ready for release?", the guide reads the phase tags and reports. No tagging, no PR transition, no skill invocation.

Audit:

1. Verify all required phase tags exist for the active item:

   • <id>/code-done (always)
   • <id>/test-done (always)
   • <id>/audit-done (when item touches security-relevant surface)

2. Run flow.py status --item <ID> and show the user the result.

3. Report in plain text:

   Item '<ID>' phase status:
   - code-done: yes/no
   - test-done: yes/no
   - audit-done: yes/no/n-a
   
   Verdict: feature-complete | missing tags: <list>
   

If a tag is missing, the guide names the responsible phase skill so the user can re-run it. If feature-complete, the user can mark the PR ready (flow.py ready-for-review --item <ID>) and invoke their private release skill themselves. The guide does neither.

---

This skill is the navigation layer. Each phase builds on the previous one and produces artifacts as input for the next phase. All phases follow the conventions from /project-conventions.

Workflow Overview

Phase 0 (brownfield only): /reverse-engineering REVERSE WALK
 Input: existing codebase + documentation (backwards
 Output: plan-context.md, ADRs (Inferred), up the V)
 arc42 (Snapshot), FEATURE-*.md (Observed),
 BA-{PROJECT}.md (Draft), backlog seed
 |
 v (forward walk starts here)
Phase 1: /business-analysis DESIGN
 Output: _devprocess/analysis/BA-{PROJECT}.md (left side
 | of the V)
 v
Phase 2: /requirements-engineering
 Input: BA document
 Output: Epics, Features, architect-handoff.md
 |
 v
Phase 3: /architecture
 Input: Features, ASRs, NFRs
 Output: ADRs, arc42, plan-context.md
 |
 v
Phase 4: /coding IMPLEMENTATION
 Input: plan-context.md + ADRs + Features (bottom of the V)
 Action: Load context, critical review,
 brief the Default agent (task breakdown,
 optional TDD, debugging protocol,
 verification gate), write artifacts back
 |
 v
Phase 5: /testing VERIFICATION
 Input: Implemented codebase + Features (right side
 Output: Unit + integration tests, fix-loop of the V)
 |
 v
Phase 6: /security-audit
 Input: Implemented codebase
 Output: Security report + remediation, fix-loop
 |
 v
Closing Handoff (not a phase)
 Input: Green security audit
 Output: /consistency-check mode B verdict + release-to-ba
 HANDOFFS template; user can run their private release skill

Phase Transitions (read-only audit)

When the user invokes /dia-guide between phases, the guide reads project state and surfaces the next step. The guide does not drive or launch phase skills; phase skills are autonomous and own their own handoff ritual. The guide observes:

1. Reads the latest entry in _devprocess/context/HANDOFFS.md (artifact report, triage IDs, release-readiness markers)
2. Reports the recommended next step in plain text and names the skill to invoke (e.g. "Recommended next: /coding")
3. The user invokes the next phase skill themselves; the guide does not call other skills

The guide does not loop, does not auto-advance, and does not block. Every phase transition is a separate user action. The guide is re-invoked whenever the user wants the next-step audit again.

When a phase-skill is invoked directly (without /dia-guide): The Handoff Ritual still runs, and the handoff context is still written to _devprocess/context/HANDOFFS.md. The user can then manually start the next skill, which will pick up the handoff entry.

Handoff entry format (binding)

Every new handoff entry in _devprocess/context/HANDOFFS.md starts with a short header block that carries the artifact triage from Phase 0. The next skill does not need to re-ask the triage question.

## {skill-from}-to-{skill-to} {YYYY-MM-DD}

triage: FEAT-01-03         # or IMP-007 / FIX-012 / ADR-04
triage_kind: feature             # one of: feature | improvement | fix | adr
epic: EPIC-01                   # mandatory for IMP/FIX; recommended otherwise
feature: FEAT-01-03         # mandatory for IMP/FIX

... (phase-specific fields, e.g. NFR summary, open questions, ...)

Rule: a skill that reads a handoff entry and finds a triage ID uses it as the Phase-0 assignment and skips the triage question. If the field is missing, the skill falls back to normal Phase-0 logic (derive from prompt, ask if needed).

Exception: the very first handoff entry in a greenfield project (e.g. /business-analysis to /requirements-engineering without an existing feature) MAY carry triage: new-feature-pending. The concrete FEATURE ID is then assigned by /requirements-engineering and written into the next handoff entry.

Ensure project structure exists

Before a phase starts, check whether the directory structure exists. If not, initialize it per /project-conventions:

mkdir -p _devprocess/{analysis/sources,requirements/{epics,features,fixes,improvements,handoff},architecture,rules,implementation/plans,context}
mkdir -p src docs scripts memory
touch _devprocess/context/HANDOFFS.md

For _devprocess/context/BACKLOG.md, do not touch an empty file. Seed it from skills/requirements-engineering/templates/BACKLOG-TEMPLATE.md with the project name, an empty dashboard, and the placeholder sections. Every phase skill updates this file per the binding format.

For _devprocess/rules/, seed technical.md from skills/architecture/templates/RULES-TECHNICAL-TEMPLATE.md. Add design.md only if the project has UI surface, seeded from RULES-DESIGN-TEMPLATE.md. Add domain.md if the project has business-domain rules, seeded from RULES-DOMAIN-TEMPLATE.md.

For src/ARCHITECTURE.map, seed from skills/architecture/templates/ARCHITECTURE-MAP-TEMPLATE.md with empty rows. /architecture and /coding populate it as entry-points appear.

Start: Determine Phase

Before asking the user, the guide runs a hybrid entry-point detection (added 2026-04-20): it scans the project, diagnoses the graph state, and formulates a recommendation. The user keeps the override.

Step 1: Scan + recommend

1. Detect the project root convention (_devprocess/ or docs/).
2. Run /consistency-check in Mode A (syntactic). The result is the current Graph-Health snapshot.
3. Infer the likely entry point from the snapshot:

Observation	Recommended entry
No V-Model artifacts at all, empty repo or pure greenfield	/business-analysis
Code exists, no docs/analysis/BA-*.md, no FEATUREs	/reverse-engineering
BA exists as Draft, not yet validated	/business-analysis Validation Mode
BA validated, no Epics or Features	/requirements-engineering
Features exist, no ADRs or plan-context.md	/architecture
plan-context.md exists, no recent code changes	/coding
Coding done, no test coverage / failing tests	/testing
Tests green, no security audit	/security-audit
Everything closed, release pending	Closing Handoff (/consistency-check mode B + /release if configured)
Graph-Health shows many orphans or dead links	/consistency-check + Cleanup first

Step 2: Present recommendation + alternatives

Show the user one AskUserQuestion with the recommendation as the first option and the manual list as alternatives:

Graph-State (letzter Check {date}):
- Epics {n}, Features {n} (Released {a}, Building {b}, Planned {c}, Candidates {d}),
 ADRs {n}, FIX/IMPs {n}, offene Luecken {n}.

Empfehlung basierend auf dem Graph-State: {recommended entry}

Oder du waehlst manuell aus:
A0 /reverse-engineering (brownfield)
A /business-analysis (BA von Beginn)
B /requirements-engineering
C /architecture
D /coding
E /testing
F /security-audit
G Closing Handoff (Audit ist gruen, Cycle abschliessen)
H /consistency-check (nur Graph-Pflege)
I Orientierungs-Interview (helfe beim Entscheiden)

If the user picks the recommended option or says "ok/go/next", start that phase. If the user picks a different option, start that one. If the user wants an interview, ask short follow-up questions to refine the recommendation.

Step 3: Phase-Entry mit Konsistenz-Hinweis

Beim Start der gewaehlten Phase zeigt der Guide eventuelle Konsistenz-Luecken aus /consistency-check, die fuer die Phase relevant sind. Beispiel: vor /architecture-Start "Du hast 3 Features ohne Epic-Parent, das sollten wir vorher klaeren, willst du /consistency-check auto-fixes laufen lassen?"

Recommended next step per phase

These are the standard recommendations the guide surfaces when a phase is complete. The guide does not invoke the next skill; it prints the recommendation and the user types the slash command.

After Reverse Engineering -> Business Analysis (brownfield only)

/reverse-engineering walks the V backwards and produces technical artifacts (plan-context.md, ADRs, arc42 snapshot, FEATURE inventory, backlog seed) plus an evidence-based BA draft. The draft is not validated: it contains only what could be cited from existing documentation, with [NEEDS USER INPUT] placeholders everywhere else.

The guide always recommends /business-analysis next, even if the draft looks complete. Code is a good technical foundation but does not prove the product solves the right problem. The user must validate each section.

Reverse engineering complete! Next step:
/business-analysis
Input: _devprocess/analysis/BA-{PROJECT}.md (Draft, reverse-engineered)

/business-analysis will:
1. Detect the draft via its status frontmatter
2. Enter Validation Mode automatically
3. Walk through each section with the user
4. Promote the status from Draft to Validated

After Business Analysis -> Requirements Engineering

Check the Quality Gates from /business-analysis, then hand off:

BA complete! Next step:
/requirements-engineering
Input: _devprocess/analysis/BA-{PROJECT}.md + last entry in HANDOFFS.md

After Requirements Engineering -> Architecture

Check: Features have tech-agnostic SC, architect-handoff.md exists.

Requirements complete! Next step:
/architecture
Input: _devprocess/requirements/handoff/architect-handoff.md

After Architecture -> Coding

Check: plan-context.md exists and is consistent with ADRs.

Architecture proposals ready! Next step:
/coding
Input: _devprocess/requirements/handoff/plan-context.md

/coding will:
1. Load plan-context.md + all ADRs + Features
2. Accept/modify ADR proposals (critical codebase review)
3. Persist an implementation plan as
 _devprocess/implementation/plans/PLAN-{nn}-{slug}.md
 (template: skills/coding/templates/PLAN-TEMPLATE.md)
4. Hand off to the Default agent with the persisted plan as
 source of truth; mid-course deviations append to the plan's
 Change Log, never rewrite past entries
5. Apply the verification gate before every completion claim
6. Close the plan (Status: Implemented, task commit SHAs) and
 write Feature specs, ADRs, and backlog back to artifacts

After Coding -> Testing

/coding automatically recommends testing after completion:

Implementation complete!

Next step:
/testing
-> Creates unit + integration tests
-> On failing tests: fix-loop with user approval

After Testing -> Security Audit

All tests passing!

Next step:
/security-audit
-> Scans the codebase for OWASP, CWE, dependency vulnerabilities
-> Creates a prioritized remediation plan

After Security Audit -> Closing Handoff

When /security-audit returns a green or yellow verdict, the guide does NOT run a release-closure phase. Cycle closure splits into two responsibilities:

• Artifact-graph closure -> delegated to /consistency-check mode B (semantic). It runs the cross-phase artifact sync (BA Validation, Feature/ADR finalisation, arc42, plan-context coherence).
• Release act (version bump, merge chain, tag, GitHub release) -> delegated to the user's private /release skill if configured. DIA does not own this step; the public plugin contains no release mechanics because release pipelines are project-specific.

---

Closing Handoff

The Closing Handoff is a short guide output, not a phase. It fires after /security-audit has produced a non-red verdict and the fix-loop is closed.

Step 1: Suggest /consistency-check mode B

Security audit verdict: {green|yellow}.
Recommended next: /consistency-check mode B (semantic).
-> Confirms BA Validation is filled, all Feature/ADR statuses are
   final, arc42 reflects the actual decisions, plan-context matches
   the real tech stack.
-> Returns Release-Ready: yes/no.

Step 2: On Release-Ready: yes -> closing report

V-Model cycle complete for {PROJECT}.

Features: {N} implemented, {N} deferred, {N} removed
Bugs: {N} resolved, {N} in backlog
Security: {N} P0/P1 resolved, {N} deferred
Tests: {N} passing, Coverage {line}/{branch}/{function}

Artifacts finalized:
- BA, {N} Epics, {N} Features
- {N} ADRs
- arc42 updated
- BACKLOG clean

Optional next step (not enforced):
- If you have a private release skill configured for this project,
  you can run it now to bump version, merge, tag, and publish. The
  cycle is otherwise complete and you can iterate from
  /business-analysis or /requirements-engineering.

After release ships, append a `release-to-ba` entry to
_devprocess/context/HANDOFFS.md so the BA Post-Release Review is
queued. Template below.

Step 3: Post-release BA review queue (template)

The release-to-ba HANDOFFS entry queues /business-analysis Phase 8 against real usage data. Without it, the BA freezes at Status: Validated forever and the post-release review depends on human memory.

## release-to-ba {YYYY-MM-DD}

Project: {PROJECT}
Version: v{version}
Release date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
Signals source: _devprocess/context/METRICS.md (or user-provided)

Ready for BA Post-Release Review: yes
Recommended timing: {after N days of real usage, per scope:
 Simple Test: 1-3 days; PoC: 7-14 days; MVP: 14-30 days}

Hypotheses to re-validate:
- H-01: {text}
- H-02: {text}
...

Either the user or the guide on a later invocation reads this entry and triggers /business-analysis Phase 8 once enough signal has accumulated.

Step 4: On Release-Ready: no -> back to the responsible skill

If /consistency-check mode B reports gaps (e.g. open Feature status drift, unfinalised ADR, missing Validation numbers), the guide names the responsible skill and the items to fix. Cycle closure resumes after the fix.

---

Artifact Directory Structure

_devprocess/
  analysis/
    BA-{PROJECT}.md                 <- Phase 1: Business Analysis
    EXPLORE-{PROJECT}.md            <- Phase 1 (PoC/MVP)
    security/
      AUDIT-{PROJECT}-{DATE}.md     <- Phase 6: Security Audit
  requirements/
    epics/
      EPIC-{nn}-{slug}.md          <- Phase 2: Requirements
    features/
      FEAT-{ee}-{ff}-{slug}.md <- Phase 2: Requirements
    handoff/
      architect-handoff.md          <- Phase 2 -> 3 handoff
      plan-context.md               <- Phase 3 -> 4 handoff
  architecture/
    ADR-{nn}-{slug}.md             <- Phase 3: Architecture
    arc42.md                        <- Phase 3: Architecture
  rules/
    technical.md                    <- Stable technical rules (max 150 lines)
    design.md                       <- UI rules (max 100 lines, optional)
    domain.md                       <- Domain rules (max 100 lines)
  implementation/
    plans/
      PLAN-{nn}-{slug}.md          <- Phase 4: persisted implementation plan
  context/
    BACKLOG.md                   <- Single source of truth for state and graph (incl. FIX rows)
    HANDOFFS.md                  <- append-only handoffs log
    METRICS.md                   <- signal layer
  requirements/
    fixes/
      FIX-{ee}-{ff}-{nn}-{slug}.md           <- Substance of bug fixes
    improvements/
      IMP-{ee}-{ff}-{nn}-{slug}.md           <- Substance of improvements

src/
  ARCHITECTURE.map                  <- Wayfinder: concept -> entry-point -> ADR
  {module}/
    README.md                       <- Optional module wayfinder
    {file}.ts                       <- Entry-points carry JSDoc headers

Traceability Chain

BA document (Why?)
 -> Epic (What, strategic?)
 -> Feature (What, concrete?)
 -> ASR (What is architecture-relevant?)
 -> ADR (How do we solve it?)
 -> plan-context.md (Context bridge)
 -> Critical Review (Does it fit the codebase?)
 -> PLAN-{nn} (Which tasks, in what order, with TDD gates?)
 -> Code (Implementation, commits cite PLAN-{nn})
 -> Tests (Does it work?)
 -> Fix-loop until green
 -> Security Audit (Is it safe?)
 -> Fix-loop until resolved
 -> Backlog (What's still open?)
 -> Closing Handoff (consistency-check mode B + optional /release)

Backchannel: changes in every phase flow back into the source artifacts (Features, ADRs, plan-context.md). At the end, the documentation always reflects the actual state.

Conventions

This workflow follows the standards from /project-conventions:

• File names: 2-digit numbers (counters), kebab-case, English
• Language: skill instructions in English, user dialog in the user's language
• Directories: _devprocess/ for internal documents
• Feature lifecycle: BACKLOG -> SPEC -> PLAN -> IMPL -> UPDATE

V-Model as a decision graph, not a straight path

The Workflow Overview above shows phases in a linear sequence for readability. In practice, the V is a decision graph. You do not always walk it once from Phase 0 to the Closing Handoff. Several triggers allow a running phase to pause and route work back to a previous phase before continuing.

The three cross-phase feedback triggers:

1. Mid-course bug discovery (in /coding). A new bug surfaces during implementation that is not in the feature specs, ADRs, or FIX-list. The coding flow pauses, routes through BUG-NNN triage, writes a root-cause analysis, adds the backlog entry, and only then writes the fix. Commit references both items.
2. Mid-course design discovery (in /coding). The implementation reveals that an architectural choice does not match reality. The coding flow pauses, amends or supersedes the affected ADR, updates arc42 and plan-context.md, and only then continues the feature.
3. Mid-course requirements discovery (in /architecture or /coding). The tech design or the implementation reveals that a FEATURE spec has a gap, ambiguity, or impossible constraint. Architecture pauses, routes the issue back to /requirements-engineering as a FEATURE-spec update, waits for the updated handoff, and only then proceeds with ADRs. Coding amends the FEATURE in place (per the Mid-course requirements trigger in /coding), re-runs the Plan Coverage Gate against the amended spec, and only then continues implementation.

Each trigger follows the same 6-step pattern: STOP, triage, write a minimal root-cause analysis, add a backlog entry BEFORE any code or artifact change, make the change with a commit that cites the artefacts, then run the Final synchronization block.

When a phase returns to an earlier phase, the lower phases downstream do NOT re-run automatically. The user decides whether the trigger fix is local or whether the full walk continues from the updated phase. The backlog entry carries the decision.

The linear look is a simplification for the guided flow, not a law. Real projects iterate. The workflow acknowledges iteration explicitly and keeps the forward walk as the default, not the only path.

Dialog handoffs

Both handoff documents (architect-handoff.md and plan-context.md) carry a ## Dialog section that creates a bidirectional channel between phases. The sender writes answers to questions the receiver raised earlier. The receiver writes new questions that came up on this pass. This turns the handoff from a one-way throw-over-the-fence into a conversation that works across agent sessions (which have no memory) and human pauses.

Binding rules:

• Not a blocker. Pending dialog entries never stop unrelated work. Only the specific ADR, FEATURE, or code change that depends on a pending question waits. Everything else continues.
• Try to self-answer first. When a phase-skill starts a new session and sees pending dialog entries addressed to its side, it attempts to answer each from existing artifacts (codebase, ADRs, FEATURE specs, BA doc) BEFORE asking the user.
• One question per session to the user. If self-answering fails, the skill surfaces ALL unresolved entries in a single AskUserQuestion at session start: "N questions from {sender} could not be self-answered. Address now, defer to end of session, or record as open issues?" Per the User Interaction Protocol, one question per turn.
• Append-only. Entries and answers are never deleted. Answered questions have Status: Resolved. Questions that outlive multiple sessions without resolution become candidates for a backlog entry.

Agent-agent and agent-human paths. The self-answer step is the agent-agent path. Two agent sessions (across time) negotiate via the shared handoff document without a human in the loop, as long as the artifacts contain the answer. The user only enters the loop when an answer cannot be derived. This preserves fast forward progress without losing the conversation trail.

See:

• skills/requirements-engineering/templates/ARCHITECT-HANDOFF-TEMPLATE.md
• skills/architecture/templates/plan-context-TEMPLATE.md

Concurrent-agent coordination

When multiple human-agent pairs work on the same repo in parallel, the backlog is the single synchronization point. Without explicit ownership, two pairs can start the same backlog row at the same time, write conflicting commits, and discover the collision only at merge.

The backlog template adds a Claim column to every active row. The value encodes the human-agent pair and the claim timestamp:

{pair-id} @ {YYYY-MM-DD}

Example: sebastian-opus-4.7 @ 2026-04-19. An empty Claim cell means the row is free to be picked up.

Claim protocol:

1. Claim on phase start. When a phase-skill starts work on a backlog row (reading FEATURE spec, writing ADR, implementing), it sets the Claim column to its own pair-id and today's date BEFORE any other write. The write is atomic: set Claim, then work.
2. Release on phase end or Status: Done. When the phase finishes (Handoff Ritual runs) or the item reaches Status=Done, the Claim column gets cleared. Rows at Status=Done do not need a Claim.
3. Claim conflict. If a pair wants to claim a row that already has a non-empty Claim, it does NOT overwrite. It surfaces the conflict to the user via AskUserQuestion: "BL-{NNN} is already claimed by {other-pair} since {date}. Options: (a) Ask the other pair to release; (b) Take over with acknowledgement; (c) Work on a different item; (d) Split the row into two related entries." The user decides. If "Take over" is chosen, the new pair appends a note to the Claim history (see rule 5).
4. Stale claims. Claims older than the phase-expected duration (e.g. a Feature stuck at Active for >14 days with an active Claim) get flagged in the next Handoff Ritual as stale. The guide proposes to ask the claiming pair for status or to release.
5. Claim history is append-additive. The Claim cell always holds the CURRENT claim. Previous claims live in the Notizen column as a dated note: Notizen: Claim handover 2026-04-19: sebastian-opus-4.7 -> anna-sonnet-4.6 (context: ADR-12 rework).

Pair-id convention: {human-handle}-{model}. Use a model slug that distinguishes sessions (e.g. opus-4.7, sonnet-4.6). No spaces. If your organisation already has a naming convention, use that instead and document it in the project CLAUDE.md.

No central lock service. The backlog is the lock. Every write happens through the normal Markdown edit cycle, so merge conflicts on the Claim column surface the collision at the exact moment two pairs try to own the same row. That is the correct behaviour.

Signal layer

The workflow writes a set of lightweight signals to _devprocess/context/METRICS.md, seeded from skills/dia-guide/templates/METRICS-TEMPLATE.md. The file answers one question: is this project pulsing in the right direction or just moving fast somewhere else?

Signals and who writes them:

Signal	Writer	When
Cycle time per FEATURE	/coding	Final synchronization, after commits with Refs: FEAT-NN-NN
Drift count (plan-context vs. code)	/coding	After Phase 2a codebase reconciliation
BA hypothesis validation status	/business-analysis	Phase 8 Post-Release Review, or any re-validation
Phase transition counts	this guide (or phase-skill if invoked standalone)	Every Handoff Ritual
Cross-phase trigger counts	the firing skill	On every mid-course trigger

Rules:

• The metrics file is append-additive. Rows are never deleted. Stale cells get superseded by a new row with the same key (FEATURE ID, date, or trigger type).
• Writes happen inside existing phase actions (Handoff Ritual, codebase reconciliation, mid-course triggers). No separate metrics-collection step, no new ceremony.
• If the file does not yet exist when a skill wants to write, the skill copies METRICS-TEMPLATE.md first, then adds its row.
• Consumers read the file to decide whether to trigger a reconciliation run, a post-release review, or a conversation about workflow adherence.

User Interaction Protocol (binding for all phase-skills)

When a phase-skill (/business-analysis, /requirements-engineering, /architecture, /coding, /testing, /security-audit) or this guide needs a decision from the user, the following rules apply. They bind whether the skill is invoked via /dia-guide or standalone.

1. One question per turn. Never batch multiple open decisions into one message. Finish Q1 (ask, wait, receive answer) before asking Q2.
2. Use AskUserQuestion. Plain markdown lists force the user to type back; the tool gives them clickable options plus a free-text "Other" slot.
3. Every option must state BOTH a Pro and a Con, explicitly labelled. Format the description field so the trade-off is scannable:

+ Pro: one short sentence stating the main upside.
- Con: one short sentence stating the main downside or cost.

Descriptions that list only advantages (or only risks) are a bug. The user decides by comparing, so both sides must be visible. 4. Mark the recommended option as the first entry with "(Recommended)" in its label. If the rationale is not obvious from the Pros/Cons alone, add a one-line "Empfehlung: ... weil ..." sentence in the turn text BEFORE the AskUserQuestion call. 5. No bundled questions under time pressure. If three decisions block progress, ask the first, wait for the answer, then ask the next. Sequencing beats efficiency here. Users get to reason about one thing at a time. 6. Exceptions: quick factual confirmations ("Proceed with the well-known Y/N step?") may stay as plain prompts. The rule targets decisions between alternatives, not acknowledgements.

Keywords

V-Model, workflow, full cycle, new project, development cycle, from analysis to implementation, full run, guide, phase transitions, closing handoff, AskUserQuestion, one question at a time, pro/con, recommendation