plan-hard

name	plan-hard
description	[Planning] Use when you need research, analyze, and create an implementation plan.
disable-model-invocation	false

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Prefer the plan-hard skill 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_agent subagent(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 Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

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/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec/test-case planning or TC mapping: feature-docs-reference.md
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

Quick Summary

Goal: Research, analyze the codebase, and create a detailed phased implementation plan with user collaboration.

Workflow:

1. Pre-Check — Detect active/suggested plan or create new directory
2. Research — Parallel researcher subagents explore different aspects (max 5 tool calls each)
3. Codebase Analysis — Search for project reference docs (patterns-reference, project-structure, architecture, adr); scout if not found
4. Plan Creation — Planner subagent creates plan.md + phase-XX files with full sections
5. Post-Validation — Optionally interview user to confirm decisions via $plan-validate

Key Rules:

• PLANNING ONLY: do NOT implement or execute code changes
• Always run $plan-review after plan creation
• Ask user to confirm before any next step
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect new tech/lib in plan and create validation task (see New Tech/Lib Gate below)

New Tech/Lib Gate (MANDATORY for all plans)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION after plan creation, detect new tech/packages/libraries not in the project. If found: task tracking per lib → WebSearch top 3 alternatives → compare (fit, size, community, learning curve, license) → recommend with confidence % → a direct user question to confirm. Skip if plan uses only existing dependencies.

Greenfield Mode

Auto-detected: If no existing codebase is found (no code directories like src/, app/, lib/, server/, packages/, etc., no manifest files like package.json/*.sln/go.mod, no populated project-config.json), this skill switches to greenfield mode automatically. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/, .claude/) don't count — the project must have actual code directories with content.

When greenfield is detected:

1. Skip codebase analysis phase (researcher subagents that grep code)
2. Replace with: market research + business evaluation phase using WebSearch + WebFetch
3. Delegate architecture decisions to solution-architect agent
4. Output: plans/{id}$plan-hard.md with greenfield-specific phases (domain model, tech stack, project structure)
5. Skip reading project reference docs (won't exist in greenfield)
6. Enable broad web research for tech landscape, best practices, framework comparisons
7. Every decision point requires ask the user directly with 2-4 options + confidence %
8. [CRITICAL] Business-First Protocol: Tech stack decisions come AFTER full business analysis. Do NOT ask user to pick a tech stack upfront. Instead: complete business evaluation → derive technical requirements → research current market options → produce comparison report → present to user for decision. See solution-architect agent for the full tech stack research methodology.

• Research reports <=150 lines; plan.md <=80 lines
• External Memory: Write all research and analysis to .ai/workspace/analysis/{task-name}.analysis.md. Re-read ENTIRE analysis file before generating plan.

Activate planning skill.

Scaffolding-First Protocol (Conditional)

Activation conditions (ALL must be true):

1. Active workflow is greenfield-init OR big-feature
2. AI MUST ATTENTION self-investigate for existing base/foundational abstractions using these patterns:
   • Abstract/base classes: abstract class.*Base|Base[A-Z]\w+|Abstract[A-Z]\w+
   • Generic interfaces: interface I\w+<|IGeneric|IBase
   • Infrastructure abstractions: IRepository|IUnitOfWork|IService|IHandler
   • Utility/extension layers: Extensions|Helpers|Utils|Common (directories or classes)
   • Frontend foundations: base.*component|base.*service|base.*store|abstract.*component (if frontend present)
   • DI/IoC registration: search for DI registration patterns idiomatic to the project's framework
3. If existing scaffolding found → SKIP. Log: "Existing scaffolding detected at {file:line}. Skipping Phase 1 scaffolding."
4. If NO foundational abstractions found → PROCEED with scaffolding phase.

When activated:

Phase 1 of the plan MUST ATTENTION be Architecture Scaffolding — all base abstract classes, generic interfaces, infrastructure abstractions, and DI registration with OOP/SOLID principles. Runs BEFORE feature stories. AI self-investigates what base classes the tech stack needs. All infrastructure behind interfaces with at least one concrete implementation (Dependency Inversion).

When skipped: Plan proceeds normally — feature stories build on existing base classes.

PLANNING-ONLY — Collaboration Required

DO NOT use the manual plan-mode switching tool — you are ALREADY in a planning workflow. DO NOT implement or execute any code changes. COLLABORATE with the user: ask decision questions, present options with recommendations. After plan creation, ALWAYS run $plan-review to validate the plan. ASK user to confirm the plan before any next step.

Your mission

$ARGUMENTS

Pre-Creation Check (Active vs Suggested Plan)

Check the ## Plan Context section in the injected context:

• If "Plan:" shows a path -> Active plan exists. Ask user: "Continue with this? [Y/n]"
• If "Suggested:" shows a path -> Branch-matched hint only. Ask if they want to activate or create new.
• If "Plan: none" -> Create new plan using naming from ## Naming section.

Workflow

1. If creating new: Create directory using Plan dir: from ## Naming section, then run node .claude/scripts/set-active-plan.cjs {plan-dir} If reusing: Use the active plan path from Plan Context. Make sure you pass the directory path to every subagent during the process.
2. Follow strictly to the "Plan Creation & Organization" rules of planning skill.
3. Use multiple researcher agents (max 2 agents) in parallel to research for this task: Each agent research for a different aspect of the task and are allowed to perform max 5 tool calls.
4. Analyze the codebase: search for project reference docs (patterns-reference, project-structure, architecture, adr) and read those found. ONLY PERFORM THIS IF docs not found or older than 3 days: Use $scout <instructions> to search the codebase for files needed.
5. Main agent gathers all research and scout report filepaths, and pass them to planner subagent with the prompt to create an implementation plan of this task.
6. Main agent receives the implementation plan from planner subagent, and ask user to review the plan

Post-Plan Validation (Optional)

After plan creation, offer validation interview to confirm decisions before implementation.

Check ## Plan Context -> Validation: mode=X, questions=MIN-MAX:

Mode	Behavior
prompt	Ask user: "Validate this plan with a brief interview?" -> Yes (Recommended) / No
auto	Automatically execute $plan-validate {plan-path}
off	Skip validation step entirely

If mode is prompt: Use a direct user question tool with options above. If user chooses validation or mode is auto: Execute $plan-validate {plan-path} SlashCommand.

Output Requirements

Plan Directory Structure (use Plan dir: from ## Naming section)

{plan-dir}/
├── research/
│   ├── researcher-XX-report.md
│   └── ...
├── reports/
│   ├── XX-report.md
│   └── ...
├── scout/
│   ├── scout-XX-report.md
│   └── ...
├── plan.md
├── phase-XX-phase-name-here.md
└── ...

Research Output Requirements

• Ensure every research markdown report remains concise (<=150 lines) while covering all requested topics and citations.

Plan File Specification

• Every plan.md MUST ATTENTION start with YAML frontmatter:

  ---
  title: '{Brief title}'
  description: '{One sentence for card preview}'
  status: pending
  priority: P2
  effort: { sum of phases, e.g., 4h }
  story_points: { sum of phase SPs, e.g., 8 }
  man_days_traditional: '{ total e.g., 6d (4d code + 2d test) }'
  man_days_ai: '{ total with AI e.g., 3d (2d code + 1d test) }'
  branch: { current git branch }
  tags: [relevant, tags]
  created: { YYYY-MM-DD }
  ---
  

• Save overview at {plan-dir}$plan-hard.md (<80 lines): list each phase with status, progress, and links to phase files.

• For each phase, create {plan-dir}/phase-XX-phase-name-here.md with sections: Context links, Overview, Key Insights, Requirements, Alternatives Considered (minimum 2 approaches with pros/cons), Design Rationale (WHY chosen approach), Architecture, UI Layout (see below), Related code files, Implementation Steps, Todo list, Success Criteria, Risk Assessment, Security Considerations, Next steps.

• UI Layout: For frontend-facing phases, include ASCII wireframe. Classify components by tier (common/domain-shared/page-app). For backend-only phases: ## UI Layout → N/A — Backend-only change.

IMPORTANT Task Planning Notes (MUST ATTENTION FOLLOW)

• Always plan and break work into many small todo tasks using task tracking
• Always add a final review todo task to verify work quality and identify fixes/enhancements
• MANDATORY FINAL TASKS: After creating all planning todo tasks, ALWAYS add these final tasks:
  1. Task: "Write test specifications for each phase" — Add ## Test Specifications with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file. Use $tdd-spec if feature docs exist. Use Evidence: TBD for TDD-first mode.
  2. Task: "Run $plan-validate" — Trigger $plan-validate skill to interview the user with critical questions and validate plan assumptions
  3. Task: "Run $plan-review" — Trigger $plan-review skill with deep 3-round protocol (R1: checklist, R2: code-proof trace, R3: adversarial simulation). Review depth based on SP: ≤3 → 2 rounds min, 4-8 → 3 rounds, >8 → 3 rounds + code-proof mandatory.
  4. Task: "Run $why-review (standalone only)" — If NOT inside a workflow, trigger $why-review to validate design rationale, alternatives considered, and risk assessment in the plan. Skip if a workflow already includes $why-review in its sequence.
  5. Task: "Re-evaluate estimation against finalized plan" — Pre-completion estimates anchor on scope guesses; finalized phases reveal true cost. After phases/TCs/decisions are locked: (a) re-derive bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours from finalized phase files; (b) recompute likely_days, risk_margin_pct, min-max range per SYNC:estimation-framework; (c) compare to current frontmatter man_days_traditional / story_points. If |delta| > 20% → UPDATE frontmatter, add reestimate_delta_pct: <signed> + 1-line reestimate_reason. If |delta| > 50% → flag SHOULD-RESCOPE and surface to user via a direct user question before implementation.

Important Notes

• Activate needed skills from catalog during process.
• Token efficiency without sacrificing quality. Sacrifice grammar for concision in reports.
• Unresolved questions → list at end of report.

---

Standalone Review Gate (Non-Workflow Only)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION: If this skill is called outside a workflow (standalone $plan-hard), the generated plan MUST ATTENTION include $review-changes as a final phase/task in the plan. This ensures all implementation changes get reviewed before commit even without a workflow enforcing it.

If already running inside a workflow (e.g., feature, bugfix), skip this — the workflow sequence handles $review-changes at the appropriate step.

Next Steps (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via a direct user question. Skip if inside workflow.)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — 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" — the user decides:

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (plan created). This ensures review, validation, implementation, and testing steps aren't skipped.
• "$why-review" — Validate design rationale in the plan before implementation (standalone only — skipped when workflow includes it)
• "$plan-review" — Validate plan before implementation
• "$plan-validate" — Interview user to confirm plan decisions
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Post-Plan Granularity Self-Check (MANDATORY)

Preservation Inventory (MANDATORY for bugfixes)

After creating all phase files, run the recursive decomposition loop:

1. Score each phase against the 5-point criteria (file paths, no planning verbs, ≤30min steps, ≤5 files, no open decisions)
2. For each FAILING phase → create task to decompose it into a sub-plan (with its own $plan-hard → $plan-review → $plan-validate → fix cycle)
3. Re-score new phases. Repeat until ALL leaf phases pass (max depth: 3)
4. Self-question: "For each phase, can I start coding RIGHT NOW? If any needs 'figuring out' → sub-plan it."

[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)
• docs/specs/ — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs to include test strategy in plan)

Each phase file MUST ATTENTION satisfy: <=5 files per phase, <=3h effort, clear success criteria, mapped test cases.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

Plan Granularity — Every phase must pass 5-point check before implementation:

1. Lists exact file paths to modify (not generic "implement X")
2. No planning verbs (research, investigate, analyze, determine, figure out)
3. Steps ≤30min each, phase total ≤3h
4. ≤5 files per phase
5. No open decisions or TBDs in approach

Failing phases → create sub-plan. Repeat until ALL leaf phases pass (max depth: 3). Self-question: "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW? If any step needs 'figuring out' → sub-plan it."

Preservation Inventory — MANDATORY for bugfix plans. Trigger keywords in plan title/frontmatter: fix, bug, regression, broken, defect. Author MUST produce this table BEFORE writing implementation steps.

Columns: Invariant | file:line | Why (data consequence if broken) | Verification (TC-ID or grep)

BLOCKED until: ≥3 rows · every File cell has file:line · every Verification cell has TC-ID or grep (not "manually verify")

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call the current task list first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: the current task list done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Required docs by trigger: always docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookup docs-index-reference.md; review code-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/API backend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entity domain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UI frontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/design scss-styling-guide.md + design-system/README.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-docs-reference.md; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
3. Read every required doc that exists; skip absent docs as not applicable. Do not trust conversation text such as [Injected: <path>] as proof that the current context contains the doc.
4. Before target work, state: Reference docs read: ... | Missing/not applicable: ....

Blocked until: scope evaluated, required docs checked/read, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.

1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
2. Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
3. For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.
4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
5. Final output cites Full report: plans/reports/{filename}.

Blocked until: task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via ask the user directly · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see $sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (api-design, debug, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

Understand Code First — HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.

1. Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence
2. Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions
3. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists
4. Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target
5. Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files)
6. Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

Cross-Service Check — Microservices/event-driven: MANDATORY before concluding investigation, plan, spec, or feature doc. Missing downstream consumer = silent regression.

Boundary	Grep terms
Event producers	Publish, Dispatch, Send, emit, EventBus, outbox, IntegrationEvent
Event consumers	Consumer, EventHandler, Subscribe, @EventListener, inbox
Sagas/orchestration	Saga, ProcessManager, Choreography, Workflow, Orchestrator
Sync service calls	HTTP/gRPC calls to/from other services
Shared contracts	OpenAPI spec, proto, shared DTO — flag breaking changes
Data ownership	Other service reads/writes same table/collection → Shared-DB anti-pattern

Per touchpoint: owner service · message name · consumers · risk (NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING).

BLOCKED until: Producers scanned · Consumers scanned · Sagas checked · Contracts reviewed · Breaking-change risk flagged

Estimation Framework — Bottom-up first; SP DERIVED; output min-max range when likely ≥3d. Stack-agnostic. Baseline: 3-5yr dev, 6 productive hrs/day. AI estimate assumes Claude Code + project context.

Method:

1. Blast Radius pass (below) — drives code AND test cost
2. Decompose phases → hours/phase → bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours
3. likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor
4. Sum Risk Margin (base + add-ons) → max_days = likely_days × (1 + margin)
5. min_days = likely_days × 0.9
6. Output as range when likely_days ≥3; single point allowed <3 (still record margin)
7. man_days_ai = same range × AI speedup
8. story_points DERIVED from likely_days via SP-Days — NEVER driver. Disagreement >50% → trust bottom-up

Productivity factor: 0.8 strong scaffolding+codegen+AI hooks · 1.0 mature default · 1.2 weak patterns · 1.5 greenfield

Cost Driver Heuristic (apply BEFORE work-type row):

• UI dominates in CRUD/business apps — 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 — call out.

Test-Scope drivers (compute test_count EXPLICITLY — "+tests" hand-wave is #1 failure):

Driver	Count
Happy-path journeys	1 per story / AC main flow
State-machine transitions	reachable transitions × allowed actors
Multi-entity state combos	state(A) × state(B) — REACHABLE only, not Cartesian
Authorization matrix	(owner, non-owner, elevated, unauth) × each mutation
Validation rules	1 per required field / boundary / format / cross-field
UI states (per new screen/dialog)	happy, loading, empty, error, partial — 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 · cross-service/bus assertion +0.3d each · UI E2E ×1.5 · each new role +1-2 cases

Blast Radius (mandatory pre-pass — affects code AND test):

1. Files/components directly modified — count
2. Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) — count
3. Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) — list
4. Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) — yes/no
5. Regression scope — areas needing re-test

Rule: Complex touch → add risk_factors. Each downstream consumer → +1-3 regression cases. Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex → 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 — enumerate in risk_factors):

Factor	+margin
touches-complex-existing-feature (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central)	+20%
cross-service-contract change	+25%
schema-migration-on-populated-data	+25%
new-tech-or-unfamiliar-pattern	+30%
regression-fan-out (≥3 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% → STOP, split (padding past 2x is dishonesty). Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5 → 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

SP→Days (validation only): 1=0.5d/0.25d · 2=1d/0.35d · 3=2d/0.65d · 5=4d/1.0d · 8=6d/1.5d · 13=10d/2.0d (Trad/AI likely) AI speedup: SP 1≈2x · 2-3≈3x · 5-8≈4x · 13+≈5x. AI cost = (code_gen × 1.3) + (test_gen × 1.3) (30% review overhead).

MANDATORY frontmatter:

story_points: <n>
complexity: low | medium | high | critical
man_days_traditional: '<min>-<max>d' # range when likely ≥3d; '<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 — row applied
    (b) Backend tier — row applied
    (c) Test scope — case breakdown by driver, file count, fixtures, tier row
    (d) Cost driver — dominant tier + why
    (e) Blast radius — touched, complex, regression scope
    (f) Risk factors — list driving margin; why not larger/smaller
    Example: "UI: compose Form/Table/Dialog → NEW screen (~1.5d). Backend: NEW command on existing aggregate,
    reuses validation+repo (~1d). Tests: 4 transitions × 2 actors + 3 validation + 2 UI states = 13 cases,
    1 new fixture → tier 13-25 ~1.5d. Driver: UI composition + new states. Blast: 4 areas, 1 complex.
    Risk: base 35% + touches-complex +20% = 55% → max 3.9d → range 2.5-4d."

Sanity self-check:

• likely_days ≥3d and single-point? → reject, must be range
• Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5d? → under-estimated, widen
• Margin >100%? → STOP, split instead of buffer
• Complex existing feature touched, no regression budget in (c)? → reject
• Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex, no split discussion? → reject
• Purely additive on existing model AND existing UI? → cap SP 3 unless tests >1.5d
• NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard)? → SP 5+ even if backend one endpoint
• Backend cross-service / migration / multi-aggregate? → SP 8+ regardless of UI
• bottom_up_hours / 6 vs SP-Days disagreement >50%? → trust bottom-up, downgrade SP
• Without tests, SP drops ≥1 bucket? → tests dominate; state explicitly
• Reasoning called out UI vs backend vs blast vs risk factors? → if missing, add

Plan Quality — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.

1. Add ## Test Specifications section with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file
2. Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit TBD with rationale)
3. TC IDs follow TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format — reference by ID, never embed full content
4. Before any new workflow step: call the current task list and re-read the phase file
5. On context compaction: call the current task list FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
6. Verify TC satisfaction per phase before marking complete (evidence must be file:line, not TBD)

Mode: TDD-first → reference existing TCs with Evidence: TBD. Implement-first → use TBD → $tdd-spec fills after.

Iterative Phase Quality — Score complexity BEFORE planning.

Complexity signals: >5 files +2, cross-service +3, new pattern +2, DB migration +2 Score >=6 → MUST ATTENTION decompose into phases. Each phase:

• ≤5 files modified
• ≤3h effort
• Follows cycle: plan → implement → review → fix → verify
• Do NOT start Phase N+1 until Phase N passes VERIFY

Phase success = all TCs pass + code-reviewer agent approves + no CRITICAL findings.

Fix-Layer Accountability — NEVER fix at the crash site. Trace the full flow, fix at the owning layer.

AI default behavior: see error at Place A → fix Place A. This is WRONG. The crash site is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.

MANDATORY before ANY fix:

1. Trace full data flow — Map the complete path from data origin to crash site across ALL layers (storage → backend → API → frontend → UI). Identify where the bad state ENTERS, not where it CRASHES.
2. Identify the invariant owner — Which layer's contract guarantees this value is valid? That layer is responsible. Fix at the LOWEST layer that owns the invariant — not the highest layer that consumes it.
3. One fix, maximum protection — Ask: "If I fix here, does it protect ALL downstream consumers with ONE change?" If fix requires touching 3+ files with defensive checks, you are at the wrong layer — go lower.
4. Verify no bypass paths — Confirm all data flows through the fix point. Check for: direct construction skipping factories, clone/spread without re-validation, raw data not wrapped in domain models, mutations outside the model layer.

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Full data flow traced (origin → crash) - [ ] Invariant owner identified with file:line evidence - [ ] All access sites audited (grep count) - [ ] Fix layer justified (lowest layer that protects most consumers)

Anti-patterns (REJECT these):

• "Fix it where it crashes" — Crash site ≠ cause site. Trace upstream.
• "Add defensive checks at every consumer" — Scattered defense = wrong layer. One authoritative fix > many scattered guards.
• "Both fix is safer" — Pick ONE authoritative layer. Redundant checks across layers send mixed signals about who owns the invariant.

AI Mistake Prevention — 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 — 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 — never patch symptom site. Assume existing values are intentional — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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.

• MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION estimation: bottom-up phase hours drive man_days_traditional (Σh/6 × productivity_factor); SP DERIVED. UI cost usually dominates — 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.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include ## Test Specifications with TC IDs per phase. Call the current task list before creating new tasks.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify all phases pass 5-point granularity check. Failing phases → sub-plan. "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW?"

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION score complexity first. Score >=6 → decompose. Each phase: plan → implement → review → fix → verify. No skipping.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION trace full data flow and fix at the owning layer, not the crash site. Audit all access sites before adding ?..

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION microservices/event-driven: scan producers, consumers, sagas, contracts in task scope. Per touchpoint: owner · message · consumers · risk (NONE/ADDITIVE/BREAKING). Missing consumer = silent regression.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see $sequential-thinking skill.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

• MANDATORY Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

• MANDATORY After task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source work, read required project-reference docs and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project conventions override generic defaults.

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

Closing Reminders

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 — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

1. DETECT: Match prompt against workflow catalog
2. ANALYZE: Find best-match workflow AND evaluate if a custom step combination would fit better
3. ASK (REQUIRED FORMAT): Use a direct user question with this structure:
   • Question: "Which workflow do you want to activate?"
   • Option 1: "Activate [BestMatch Workflow] (Recommended)"
   • Option 2: "Activate custom workflow: [step1 → step2 → ...]" (include one-line rationale)
4. ACTIVATE (if confirmed): Call $workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow steps
6. EXECUTE: Follow each step in sequence [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.

Learned Lessons

Lessons Learned

[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.

Quick Summary

Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns — debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.

Top Rules (apply always):

• MUST ATTENTION verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis
• MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom sites with caller-specific defensive code
• MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW — NEVER ExecuteUowTask
• MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE not CONTENT — adding member forces rename = abstraction broken
• MUST ATTENTION persist sub-agent findings incrementally after each file — NEVER batch at end
• MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: verify Python alias (where python/where py) — NEVER assume python/python3 resolves

---

Debugging & Root Cause Reasoning

• [2026-04-11] Holistic-first: verify environment before code. Failure → list ALL preconditions (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI regs, credentials, permissions, data prerequisites) → verify each via evidence (grep/cat/query) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis. Worst rabbit holes: diving nearest layer while bug sits elsewhere — e.g., hours debugging "sync timeout", real cause: test appsettings pointing wrong DB. Cheapest check first.
• [2026-04-01] Ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace: bug in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling)? Fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site masking real issue.
• [2026-04-01] Trace data lifecycle, not error site. Follow data: creation → transformation → consumption. Bug usually where data created wrong, not consumed.
• [2026-04-01] Code is caller-agnostic. Functions/handlers/consumers don't know who invokes them. Comments/guards/messages describe business intent — NEVER reference specific callers (tests, seeders, scripts).

Architecture Invariants

• [2026-03-31] ParallelAsync + repo/UoW MUST use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) — parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).
• [2026-03-31] Bus message naming MUST include service name prefix — core services NEVER consume feature events. Prefix declares schema ownership (AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) are leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage — never define own event for core to consume.

Naming & Abstraction

• [2026-04-12] Name PURPOSE not CONTENT — "OrXxx" anti-pattern. HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what it guards. Add role → rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad → rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine in behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) — expresses HAPPENS, not membership.

Environment & Tooling

• [2026-04-20] Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — 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 → docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md Lessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns → docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md Anti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders → System Lessons in .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.

---

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION holistic-first: verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, endpoints, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis — cheapest check first
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site; trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling), fix root owner
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION parallel async + repo/UoW → ALWAYS ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption)
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bus message prefix = schema ownership; feature services NEVER define events for core services — use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE — adding/removing member forces rename = broken abstraction
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sub-agents MUST write findings after each file/section — NEVER batch all findings into one final write
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — run where python/where py first, use py launcher or node

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $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.