with one click
dor-gate
// [Code Quality] Use when you need validate PBI against Definition of Ready before grooming.
// [Code Quality] Use when you need validate PBI against Definition of Ready before grooming.
[HINT] Download the complete skill directory including SKILL.md and all related files
| name | dor-gate |
| description | [Code Quality] Use when you need validate PBI against Definition of Ready before grooming. |
Codex compatibility note:
- Invoke repository skills with
$skill-namein Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude/skill-namereferences.- Prefer the
plan-hardskill for planning guidance in this Codex mirror.- Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
- User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
- Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
- Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
- Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required
spawn_agentsubagent(s) for that task.- Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
- For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
- If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.
Codex does not receive Claude hook-based doc injection. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.
Always read:
docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)Situation-based docs:
backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.mdfrontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.mdfeature-docs-reference.mdintegration-test-reference.mde2e-test-reference.mdcode-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed filesDo not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.
[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set
in_progresswhen step starts, setcompletedwhen step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.
Goal: Validate a PBI artifact against the Definition of Ready (DoR) checklist. Block PBIs that fail required criteria from entering grooming.
Key distinction: Automated quality gate (not collaborative review โ use $pbi-challenge for that).
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
team-artifacts/pbis/ or active plan context. If not found, ask user for path.$refine-review or $pbi-challenge result is PASS or WARN## DoR Gate Result
**PBI:** {PBI filename}
**Status:** PASS | FAIL
**Date:** {date}
### Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence / Issue |
| --- | --------------------------- | --------- | ---------------- |
| 1 | User story template | โ
/โ | {evidence} |
| 2 | AC testable and unambiguous | โ
/โ | {evidence} |
| 3 | Wireframes/mockups | โ
/โ/N/A | {evidence} |
| 4 | UI design ready | โ
/โ/N/A | {evidence} |
| 5 | AI pre-review passed | โ
/โ | {evidence} |
| 6 | Story points estimated | โ
/โ | {evidence} |
| 7 | Dependencies complete | โ
/โ | {evidence} |
### Blocking Items (if FAIL)
1. {Fix instruction}
### Verdict
**{READY_FOR_GROOMING | FIX_REQUIRED}**
refinement-dor-checklist-protocol.md for criteria definitions.MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION โ NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use a direct user question to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" โ the user decides:
[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.
Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION โ every claim requires
file:lineproof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act).
AI Mistake Prevention โ Failure modes to avoid on every task:
Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal. Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing. Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain. Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips โ not just happy path. When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer โ never patch symptom site. Assume existing values are intentional โ ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks. Holistic-first debugging โ resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis. Surgical changes โ apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly. Surface ambiguity before coding โ don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.
Estimation Framework โ Bottom-up first; SP DERIVED; output min-max range when likely โฅ3d. Stack-agnostic. Baseline: 3-5yr dev, 6 productive hrs/day. AI estimate assumes Claude Code + project context.
Method:
- Blast Radius pass (below) โ drives code AND test cost
- Decompose phases โ hours/phase โ
bottom_up_hours = ฮฃ phase_hourslikely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) ร productivity_factor- Sum Risk Margin (base + add-ons) โ
max_days = likely_days ร (1 + margin)min_days = likely_days ร 0.9- Output as range when
likely_days โฅ3; single point allowed<3(still record margin)man_days_ai= same range ร AI speedupstory_pointsDERIVED fromlikely_daysvia SP-Days โ NEVER driver. Disagreement >50% โ trust bottom-upProductivity factor: 0.8 strong scaffolding+codegen+AI hooks ยท 1.0 mature default ยท 1.2 weak patterns ยท 1.5 greenfield
Cost Driver Heuristic (apply BEFORE work-type row):
- UI dominates in CRUD/business apps โ 1.5-3x backend (states, validation, responsive, a11y, polish)
- Backend dominates ONLY: multi-aggregate invariants, cross-service contracts, schema migrations, heavy query/perf, new event flows
Reuse-vs-Create axis (PRIMARY lever, per layer):
UI tier Cost Reuse component on existing screen 0.1-0.3d Add control/column to existing screen 0.3-0.8d Compose components into NEW screen 1-2d NEW screen, custom layout/states/validation 2-4d NEW shared/common component (themed, tested) 3-6d+
Backend tier Cost Reuse query/handler from new place 0.1-0.3d Small update existing handler/entity 0.3-0.8d NEW query on existing repo/model 0.5-1d NEW command/handler on existing aggregate (additive) 1-2d NEW aggregate/entity (repo, validation, events) 2-4d NEW cross-service contract OR schema migration 2-4d each Multi-aggregate invariant / heavy domain rule 3-5d Rule: Sum tiers across UI+backend+tests, apply productivity factor. Reuse short-circuits tiers โ call out.
Test-Scope drivers (compute test_count EXPLICITLY โ "+tests" hand-wave is #1 failure):
Driver Count Happy-path journeys 1 per story / AC main flow State-machine transitions reachable transitions ร allowed actors Multi-entity state combos state(A) ร state(B) โ REACHABLE only, not Cartesian Authorization matrix (owner, non-owner, elevated, unauth) ร each mutation Validation rules 1 per required field / boundary / format / cross-field UI states (per new screen/dialog) happy, loading, empty, error, partial โ present only Negative paths / invariants 1 per violatable business rule
Test tier (Trad, incl. setup+assert+flake) Cost 1-5 cases, fixtures reused 0.3-0.5d 6-12 cases, 1 new fixture 0.5-1d 13-25 cases, multi-entity setup 1-2d 26-50 cases OR new state-machine coverage 2-3d >50 cases OR full E2E journey 3-5d Test multipliers: new fixture/seed harness +0.5d ยท cross-service/bus assertion +0.3d each ยท UI E2E ร1.5 ยท each new role +1-2 cases
Blast Radius (mandatory pre-pass โ affects code AND test):
- Files/components directly modified โ count
- Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) โ count
- Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) โ list
- Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) โ yes/no
- Regression scope โ areas needing re-test
Rule: Complex touch โ add
risk_factors. Each downstream consumer โ +1-3 regression cases. Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex โ re-evaluate SPLIT before estimating.Risk Margin (drives max bound):
likely_days Base margin <1d trivial +10% 1-2d small additive +20% 3-4d real feature +35% 5-7d large +50% 8-10d very large +75% >10d +100% AND flag SHOULD SPLIT Risk-factor add-ons (additive โ enumerate in
risk_factors):
Factor +margin touches-complex-existing-feature(>500 LOC, multi-handler, central)+20% cross-service-contractchange+25% schema-migration-on-populated-data+25% new-tech-or-unfamiliar-pattern+30% regression-fan-out(โฅ3 downstream areas re-test)+20% performance-or-latency-critical+20% concurrency-race-event-ordering+25% shared-common-code(multi-consumer/multi-app)+25% unclear-requirements-or-design+30% Collapse rule: total margin >100% โ STOP, split (padding past 2x is dishonesty). Margin <15% on
likely_days โฅ5โ under-estimated, widen.Work-Type Caps (hard ceilings on
likely_days):
Work type Max SP Max likely Single field / config flag / style fix 1 0.5d Add property to existing model + bind to existing UI 2 1d Additive endpoint + minor UI control (button/menu/column), reuses fixtures 3 2-3d Additive endpoint + NEW UI surface OR additive multi-layer + new domain rule + 2+ test files 5 3-5d NEW model/aggregate OR migration OR cross-module contract OR heavy test (>1.5d) OR NEW UI + non-trivial backend 8 5-7d NEW UI surface + (NEW aggregate OR migration OR cross-service contract) 13 SHOULD split Cross-service contract + migration combined 13 SHOULD split Beyond 21 MUST split SPโDays (validation only): 1=0.5d/0.25d ยท 2=1d/0.35d ยท 3=2d/0.65d ยท 5=4d/1.0d ยท 8=6d/1.5d ยท 13=10d/2.0d (Trad/AI likely) AI speedup: SP 1โ2x ยท 2-3โ3x ยท 5-8โ4x ยท 13+โ5x. AI cost =
(code_gen ร 1.3) + (test_gen ร 1.3)(30% review overhead).MANDATORY frontmatter:
story_points: <n> complexity: low | medium | high | critical man_days_traditional: '<min>-<max>d' # range when likely โฅ3d; '<N>d' when <3d man_days_ai: '<min>-<max>d' risk_margin_pct: <n> # base + add-ons risk_factors: [touches-complex-existing-feature, regression-fan-out] # closed-list from add-ons; [] if none blast_radius: touched_areas: <n> complex_touched: <n> downstream_consumers: [list or count] shared_common_code: yes | no estimate_scope_included: [code, integration-tests, frontend, i18n, docs] estimate_scope_excluded: [unit-tests, e2e, perf, deployment, code-review-rounds] estimate_reasoning: | 5-7 lines covering: (a) UI tier โ row applied (b) Backend tier โ row applied (c) Test scope โ case breakdown by driver, file count, fixtures, tier row (d) Cost driver โ dominant tier + why (e) Blast radius โ touched, complex, regression scope (f) Risk factors โ list driving margin; why not larger/smaller Example: "UI: compose Form/Table/Dialog โ NEW screen (~1.5d). Backend: NEW command on existing aggregate, reuses validation+repo (~1d). Tests: 4 transitions ร 2 actors + 3 validation + 2 UI states = 13 cases, 1 new fixture โ tier 13-25 ~1.5d. Driver: UI composition + new states. Blast: 4 areas, 1 complex. Risk: base 35% + touches-complex +20% = 55% โ max 3.9d โ range 2.5-4d."Sanity self-check:
likely_days โฅ3dand single-point? โ reject, must be range- Margin <15% on
likely_days โฅ5d? โ under-estimated, widen- Margin >100%? โ STOP, split instead of buffer
- Complex existing feature touched, no regression budget in
(c)? โ reject- Blast
>5areas OR>2complex, no split discussion? โ reject- Purely additive on existing model AND existing UI? โ cap SP 3 unless tests >1.5d
- NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard)? โ SP 5+ even if backend one endpoint
- Backend cross-service / migration / multi-aggregate? โ SP 8+ regardless of UI
bottom_up_hours / 6vs SP-Days disagreement >50%? โ trust bottom-up, downgrade SP- Without tests, SP drops โฅ1 bucket? โ tests dominate; state explicitly
- Reasoning called out UI vs backend vs blast vs risk factors? โ if missing, add
Critical Thinking Mindset โ Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact โ cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence โ certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
man_days_traditional (ฮฃh/6 ร productivity_factor); SP DERIVED. UI cost usually dominates โ bump SP one bucket if NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard). Frontmatter MUST include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai, estimate_scope_included, estimate_scope_excluded, estimate_reasoning (UI vs backend cost driver). Cap SP 3 for additive-on-existing-model+existing-UI unless test scope >1.5d. SP 13 SHOULD split, SP 21 MUST split.
MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking โ every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.
MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention โ holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via a direct user question โ never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality.
[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.
[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting โ this is very important.
Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json
$workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.
Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns โ debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.
Top Rules (apply always):
ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW โ NEVER ExecuteUowTaskwhere python/where py) โ NEVER assume python/python3 resolvesExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) โ parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) are leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage โ never define own event for core to consume.HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what it guards. Add role โ rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad โ rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine in behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) โ expresses HAPPENS, not membership.python/python3 resolves โ verify alias first. Python may not be in bash PATH under those names. Check: where python / where py. Prefer py (Windows Python Launcher) for one-liners, node if JS alternative exists.Test-specific lessons โ
docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.mdLessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns โdocs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.mdAnti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders โ System Lessons in.claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.
ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption){CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessagepython/python3 resolves โ run where python/where py first, use py launcher or nodeBreak work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".
Extract lessons โ ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:
$learn.$code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" โ Yes โ improve review skill instead.$learn.
[TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.