story

name	story
description	[Project Management] Use when creating user stories from PBIs, slicing features, or breaking down requirements.

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.

[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_progress when step starts, set completed when 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.

Quick Summary

Goal: Break Product Backlog Items into implementable user stories using vertical slicing, SPIDR splitting, and INVEST criteria.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Plan ToDo Task to READ the following project-specific reference docs:

• project-structure-reference.md -- project patterns and structure

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

• 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 for related features; include test story/acceptance criteria for new stories)

If file not found, search for: project documentation, coding standards, architecture docs.

Workflow:

1. Read PBI — Load PBI artifact, acceptance criteria, and domain context
2. Vertical Slice — Identify end-to-end slices of functionality
3. SPIDR Split — Apply Spike/Paths/Interfaces/Data/Rules splitting if effort >5
4. Write Stories — INVEST-validated stories with min 3 GIVEN/WHEN/THEN scenarios each
5. Validate — Interview user to confirm slicing, acceptance criteria, and effort estimates

Key Rules:

Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

When this task involves frontend or UI changes,

• Component patterns: docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md

• Styling/BEM guide: docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md

• Design system tokens: docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

• Stories with SP >8 MUST ATTENTION be split; >5 SHOULD be split (see estimation-framework.md)

• All stories MUST ATTENTION include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai fields

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. Generate foundation PBIs instead of feature stories: infrastructure setup, project scaffold, CI/CD pipeline, first feature vertical slice

2. Add dependency ordering: infrastructure stories BEFORE feature stories

3. Skip "MUST ATTENTION READ project-structure-reference.md" (won't exist)

4. Include setup stories: dev environment, build tooling, deployment pipeline, monitoring

5. Priority order: infra → scaffold → first feature → remaining features

6. [CRITICAL] Architecture Scaffolding Story: FIRST story = "Architecture Scaffolding" — all OOP/SOLID base abstract classes, generic interfaces, infrastructure abstractions per chosen tech stack. AI self-investigates what base classes the project needs. All feature stories depend on this.

7. Scaffolding acceptance criteria: all base classes compile/type-check, DI/IoC registrations resolve, smoke test passes

8. UI System Foundation Story: If the project has a frontend, generate a "UI System Foundation" story (Sprint 0) with these sub-stories:

   Sub-Story	SP	Priority	Depends On
   "Set up design token system"	2-3	Must Have	Architecture Scaffolding
   "Create base layout and responsive grid"	2-3	Must Have	Design tokens
   "Create core UI components (loading, error, empty, toast, button, input)"	3-5	Must Have	Design tokens + layout

Dependency rule: All UI feature stories MUST ATTENTION depend on "UI System Foundation" stories.

• Each story needs happy path, edge case, and error scenario (minimum)
• Use correct project domain vocabulary when available (check project docs for terminology)

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

User Story Creation

Break Product Backlog Items into implementable user stories using vertical slicing and SPIDR patterns.

---

Step 0: Locate Active Plan (if in workflow)

If running within a workflow (big-feature, greenfield-init, etc.):

1. Search for active plan — Glob plans/*$plan-hard.md sorted by modification time, or check the current task list for plan context
2. Read plan.md — understand project scope, architecture decisions, domain model, implementation plan
3. Read existing research — {plan-dir}$research/*.md and {plan-dir}/phase-*.md for domain model, tech stack, architecture
4. Read docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md (if exists) — understand existing domain entities for accurate story scoping
5. Use plan context to inform story slicing (architecture decisions affect how stories are split)

---

When to Use

• PBI ready for story breakdown
• Feature needs vertical slicing
• Creating sprint-ready work items
• Story too large (effort >8)

---

Quick Reference

Workflow

1. Read PBI artifact and acceptance criteria
2. Load domain context (if project module detected)
3. Identify vertical slices (end-to-end functionality)
4. Apply SPIDR splitting if stories too large
5. Apply INVEST criteria to each story
6. Create user stories with GIVEN/WHEN/THEN (min 3 scenarios)
7. Save to team-artifacts/pbis/stories/
8. Validate stories (MANDATORY) - Interview user to confirm slicing, acceptance criteria, and effort
9. Suggest next: $tdd-spec or $design-spec

Output

• Path: team-artifacts/pbis/stories/{YYMMDD}-us-{pbi-slug}.md
• Format: Single file with all stories (use ## headers per story)

---

Project Domain Context Loading

When slicing domain-related PBIs, automatically load business context.

Step 1: Detect Module

From PBI frontmatter:

1. Check module field
2. If missing, detect module from docs/business-features/ directory names

Step 2: Load Feature Context

Glob("docs/business-features/{module}/detailed-features/*.md")

1. Read module README (first 200 lines)
2. Identify related feature from related_features list
3. Extract existing business rules (BR-{MOD}-XXX)
4. Note entity names from feature docs

Step 3: Apply Domain Vocabulary

Read docs/project-config.json modules[] and docs/business-features/ to detect domain vocabulary per module. Use entity names from feature docs — avoid ambiguous synonyms.

Step 4: Include in Story

## Domain Context

**Module:** {detected module}
**Feature:** {related feature}
**Entities:** {Entity1}, {Entity2}
**Business Rules:** BR-{MOD}-XXX (from feature docs)

---

INVEST Criteria

Criterion	Definition	Validation Question
Independent	No dependencies on other stories	Can this be developed in any order?
Negotiable	Details can change	Is the "how" open for discussion?
Valuable	Delivers user value	Does user get observable benefit?
Estimable	Can estimate story points	Can team size this? (Fibonacci 1-21)
Small	Completable in sprint	SP ≤8? (prefer ≤5)
Testable	Clear acceptance criteria	Can we write pass/fail tests?

---

SPIDR Splitting Checklist

When to apply: Story SP >8 MUST ATTENTION split. SP >5 SHOULD split. SP 13 = SHOULD split into 2-3 stories. SP 21 = MUST ATTENTION split (epic-level).

Pattern	Question	Split Strategy
Spike	Unknown complexity?	Create research spike first, then stories
Paths	Multiple workflow branches?	One story per path/choice
Interfaces	Multiple UIs or APIs?	One story per interface
Data	Multiple data formats/types?	One story per data variation
Rules	Multiple business rules?	One story per rule variation

Splitting Examples

Paths: "User can pay by card OR PayPal" → Story A: Card payment, Story B: PayPal payment

Data: "Import CSV, Excel, JSON" → Story A: CSV import, Story B: Excel import, Story C: JSON import

Rules: "Different approval flows by amount" → Story A: <$1000 auto-approve, Story B: >$1000 manager approval

Size Validation

SP 1-5:   ✅ Good size
SP 6-8:   ⚠️ Consider splitting (apply SPIDR)
SP 13:    ❌ SHOULD split into 2-3 stories
SP 21:    ❌ MUST ATTENTION split — epic-level, not sprint-ready

---

Scenario Templates

Minimum 3 scenarios per story:

1. Happy Path (Positive)

Scenario: User successfully {completes action}
  Given {user has required permissions/state}
  And {required data exists}
  When user {performs valid action}
  Then {primary expected outcome}
  And {secondary verification if needed}

2. Edge Case (Boundary)

Scenario: System handles {boundary condition}
  Given {edge state: empty list, max items, zero value}
  When user {attempts action at boundary}
  Then {appropriate handling: pagination, warning, default}

3. Error Case (Negative)

Scenario: System prevents {invalid action}
  Given {precondition}
  When user {provides invalid input OR unauthorized action}
  Then error message "{specific error message}"
  And {system remains in valid state}
  And {no partial changes saved}

4. Authorization (MANDATORY per story)

Scenario: Unauthorized user cannot {perform action}
  Given user has role {unauthorized role}
  When user attempts to {action}
  Then system rejects with "Forbidden" or "Unauthorized"
  And no data is modified

Additional Scenario Types

Performance: Response time under load Concurrency: Simultaneous user actions Integration: External service unavailable

---

Story Artifact Template

---
id: US-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}
parent_pbi: '{PBI-ID}'
title: '{Brief story title}'
persona: '{User persona}'
priority: P1 | P2 | P3
story_points: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13
complexity: Low | Medium | High | Very High
man_days_traditional: '{ Xd (Yd code + Zd test) — from SP table }'
man_days_ai: '{ Xd (Yd code + Zd test) — from SP table with AI }'
sprint: 0 | 1 | 2 | ...
status: draft | ready | in_progress | done
module: '{ServiceA | ServiceB | ServiceC | ServiceD}'
---

# User Stories for {PBI Title}

## Story 1: {Title}

**As a** {user role}
**I want** {goal}
**So that** {benefit}

### Acceptance Criteria

#### Scenario 1: {Happy path title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}
```

Scenario 2: {Edge case title}

Given {edge state}
When {action}
Then {handling}

Scenario 3: {Error case title}

Given {context}
When {invalid action}
Then error "{message}"

---

Story 2: {Title}

{Repeat structure...}

---

Out of Scope

• {Explicitly excluded items}

Story Dependencies

Story	Depends On	Type	Reason
US-{NNN}	-	independent	First slice, no dependencies
US-{NNN}	US-{NNN}	must-after	Needs entity/API from prior story
US-{NNN}	US-{NNN}	can-parallel	Independent feature slice
US-{NNN}	US-{NNN}	blocked-by	Requires external service/infra

Domain Context

Module: {module} Related Feature: {feature doc path} Entities: {Entity1}, {Entity2} Business Rules: {BR-XXX references}

UI Wireframe

Layout

{ASCII wireframe showing this story's UI slice — see UI wireframe protocol}

Components

• {ComponentName} — {behavior for this story} (tier: common | domain-shared | page/app)

Classify per Component Hierarchy in UI wireframe protocol — search existing libs before proposing new components.

Interaction Flow

1. User {action} on {component}
2. System {response/feedback}
3. UI updates to show {result}

States

State	Behavior
Default	{what user sees initially}
Loading	{spinner/skeleton}
Empty	{empty state message}
Error	{error handling}

If backend-only: ## UI Wireframe → N/A — Backend-only change. No UI affected.

Technical Notes

• {Implementation hints if needed}

Validation Summary

Validated: {date}

Confirmed

• {decision}: {user choice}

Action Items

• {follow-up if any}

---

## Sprint 0 / Foundation Stories (Production Readiness)

When the PBI includes a "Production Readiness Concerns" table with "Required" items, automatically generate Sprint 0 / foundation stories for each concern:

| PBI Concern | Story Title | Story Points | Priority |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|----------|
| Code linting/analyzers = Required | "Set up code linting and formatting" | 1-2 SP | Must Have |
| Error handling setup = Required | "Set up error handling foundation" | 2-3 SP | Must Have |
| Loading indicators = Required | "Set up loading indicator infrastructure" | 1-2 SP | Must Have |
| Docker integration = Required | "Set up Docker development environment" | 2-3 SP | Must Have |
| CI/CD quality gates = Required | "Set up CI/CD quality gates" | 2-3 SP | Must Have |
| Seed data = Required | "Set up seed data / data seeder" | 2-3 SP | Must Have |
| Data migration = Required | "Create data migration for schema changes" | 1-3 SP | Must Have |

### Rules
- Foundation stories MUST ATTENTION be completed before feature stories begin
- Mark as `sprint: 0` or `sprint: foundation` in story metadata
- Each foundation story references the specific protocol section for implementation guidance
- If PBI concern = "Existing", skip story generation (already set up)
- If PBI concern = "No", skip story generation (explicitly opted out)

---

## Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Anti-Pattern       | Problem                                           | Correct Approach                              |
| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
| Horizontal slicing | "Backend story" + "Frontend story" = delays value | Vertical slice: thin end-to-end functionality |
| Single scenario    | Missing edge/error cases                          | Minimum 3 scenarios: happy, edge, error       |
| Vague criteria     | "Fast", "user-friendly" untestable                | Quantify: "< 200ms", "≤ 3 clicks"             |
| Solution-speak     | "Use Redis cache" constrains team                 | Outcome: "Results return within 200ms"        |
| Effort >8          | Won't fit sprint, hard to estimate                | Apply SPIDR, split until ≤8                   |
| No error scenario  | Missing negative test coverage                    | Always include invalid input handling         |
| Generic persona    | "As a user" too vague                             | Specific: "As a hiring manager"               |

---

## Key Rules

- **Every story set MUST ATTENTION include a Story Dependencies table** — with types: `must-after`, `can-parallel`, `blocked-by`, `independent`. This enables `$prioritize` and `$plan-hard` to respect implementation ordering.
- **SPIDR splits MUST ATTENTION include dependency chains** — When splitting a story, declare which split stories depend on others.
- **No orphan stories** — Every story must appear in the dependency table, even if independent.

## Quality Checklist

Before completing user stories:

- [ ] Each story follows "As a... I want... So that..." format
- [ ] SPIDR splitting applied (effort ≤8, prefer ≤5)
- [ ] At least 3 scenarios per story: happy, edge, error
- [ ] All scenarios use GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
- [ ] Effort estimated in Fibonacci (1, 2, 3, 5, 8)
- [ ] Stories independent (can develop in any order)
- [ ] Out of scope explicitly listed
- [ ] Story Dependencies table included with all stories listed
- [ ] Dependency types correct (must-after, can-parallel, blocked-by, independent)
- [ ] Parent PBI linked in frontmatter
- [ ] Domain vocabulary used correctly (if the project)
- [ ] Authorization scenario included per story (unauthorized access rejection)
- [ ] Seed data story included if PBI has seed data requirements
- [ ] Data migration story included if PBI has schema changes
- [ ] Validation interview completed

---

## Validation Step (MANDATORY)

After creating user stories, validate with user.

### Question Categories

| Category         | Example Question                                    |
| ---------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
| **Slicing**      | "Are the story slices independent enough?"          |
| **Size**         | "Any story >8 effort that needs further splitting?" |
| **Scenarios**    | "Any acceptance criteria missing for edge cases?"   |
| **Dependencies** | "Are there hidden dependencies between stories?"    |
| **Scope**        | "Should anything be explicitly excluded?"           |

### Process

1. Generate 2-4 questions focused on slicing quality, scenarios, and dependencies
2. Use a direct user question tool to interview
3. Document in story artifact under `## Validation Summary`
4. Update stories based on answers (split if needed)

**This step is NOT optional.**

---

## Related

| Type           | Reference                                   |
| -------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
| **Role Skill** | `business-analyst`                          |
| **Command**    | `$story`                                    |
| **Input**      | `$refine` output (PBI)                      |
| **Next Steps** | `$tdd-spec`, `$design-spec`, `$prioritize` |

---

## MANDATORY: Systematic Task Breakdown for Stories

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break down ALL stories into small, systematic todo tasks using task tracking BEFORE starting implementation. Each story MUST ATTENTION have its own set of tasks that cover:

1. **Read & understand story** — Load story artifact, acceptance criteria, domain context
2. **Identify vertical slice layers** — Backend entity/command/query, frontend component/store/API, integration points
3. **Create implementation subtasks per layer** — One task per file or logical unit (entity, command handler, DTO, component, service, test)
4. **Include spec tasks** — Each story MUST ATTENTION have corresponding test specifications (unit, integration, or E2E as appropriate)
5. **Include validation task** — Verify story against acceptance criteria GIVEN/WHEN/THEN after implementation
6. **Include review task** — Final quality check per story

### Task Naming Convention

```

[Story US-{ID}] {Layer}: {Description}

```

Example for a "Create Goal" story:
```

[Story US-001] Entity: Create Goal entity with validation rules
[Story US-001] Command: CreateGoalCommand + Handler
[Story US-001] DTO: GoalDto with mapping
[Story US-001] API: POST /api/goals endpoint
[Story US-001] Component: GoalCreateFormComponent
[Story US-001] Store: GoalVmStore with create action
[Story US-001] Test: Integration test for CreateGoalCommand
[Story US-001] Test: E2E test for goal creation flow
[Story US-001] Review: Verify against AC scenarios

```

**Why:** Without systematic task breakdown, stories become monolithic — leading to missed edge cases, incomplete specs, and context loss during implementation.

---

## Next Steps

**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:
- **"$tdd-spec (Recommended)"** — Generate test specifications from stories
- **"$pbi-mockup"** — Generate HTML mockup report from PBI and stories
- **"$plan-validate"** — If stories need validation against plan
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides

> **[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.

> **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.

> **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).

<!-- SYNC:ui-system-context -->

> **UI System Context** — For ANY task touching `.ts`, `.html`, `.scss`, or `.css` files:
>
> **MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:**
>
> 1. `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md` — component base classes, stores, forms
> 2. `docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md` — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive
> 3. `docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md` — design tokens, component inventory, icons
>
> Reference `docs/project-config.json` for project-specific paths.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context -->

<!-- SYNC:ui-wireframe -->

> **UI Wireframe** — For UI artifacts: include ASCII wireframe (box-drawing chars), component tree with EXISTING/NEW classification and tier (common | domain-shared | page/app), interaction flow (user action → system response → UI update), states table (default/loading/empty/error), and responsive breakpoint behavior. Process Figma URLs or screenshots BEFORE wireframing. Search existing component libs before proposing new components. Backend-only changes: `N/A — Backend-only change. No UI affected.`

<!-- /SYNC:ui-wireframe -->

<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

> **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.

<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

<!-- SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol -->

> **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).

<!-- /SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol -->

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

**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.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

<!-- SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder -->
- **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.
<!-- /SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder -->

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** read frontend-patterns-reference, scss-styling-guide, design-system/README before any UI change.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->

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

<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol:reminder -->

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

<!-- /SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

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

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->
## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

**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

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:END -->

## 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.

[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.

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.