用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform --skill plan-validate命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
[Architecture] Use when designing solution architecture across backend, frontend, deployment, monitoring, testing, and code quality.
[Utilities] Use when you need to answer technical and architectural questions.
[Content] Use when you need to brainstorm as a PO/BA — structured ideation for problem-solving, new product creation, or feature enhancement.
正在显示 SKILL.md
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | plan-validate |
| description | [Planning] Use when you need to validate a plan with critical questions interview. |
Codex compatibility note:
- Invoke repository skills with
$skill-namein Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude/skill-namereferences.- 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 uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. 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)Missing/stale context route: If docs/project-config.json, the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow setup route ($project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, $scan --target=<key>, $claude-md-init) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are missing/stale, ask the user to run $sync-codex; do not auto-run it.
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.mddocs/specs/ pathing, or TC format: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.mdworkflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md plus the spec docs abovespec-system-reference.md and source Feature Specs under docs/specs/integration-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: Force every assumption-laden plan decision and every preservation-critical behavior through explicit user confirmation BEFORE implementation — by interviewing the user with critical questions that validate assumptions and surface issues — so no unstated assumption silently reaches code.
Summary:
questions MIN-MAX range from ## Plan Context, give 2-4 concrete options per question, and treat the Preservation "Unsure" answer as BLOCKED → route to $plan.## Validation Summary (confirmed decisions + action items) to plan.md — NEVER edit phase files; close by offering implement/refine/skip via a direct user question.Workflow:
Key Rules:
The success metric of every coding decision is future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — every technique exists to serve one goal: making the next change cheaper.
Evaluating code, refactor, test, abstraction, ask: does this make next change cheaper or more expensive?
Apply this lens before invoking any specific rule, pattern, or checklist below — if a downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.
Classify plan type BEFORE generating questions — drives question category weighting:
| Plan Type | Detection | Mandatory Extra Categories |
|---|---|---|
| Bugfix | Title/frontmatter: fix, bug, regression, broken, defect | Preservation (BLOCKING) |
| Feature | New capability, no fix keywords | Architecture, Assumptions, Test Specs |
| Migration | Schema change, EF migration, data move | Risks, Preservation, Scope |
| Refactor | Restructure/clean up, no behavior change | Preservation, Tradeoffs |
| Other | None of above | Architecture, Scope |
Bugfix detection is BLOCKING — NEVER skip Preservation question when fix/bug/regression/broken/defect keywords present.
$ARGUMENTS provided → use that path## Plan Context section → use active plan path$plan firstCheck ## Plan Context section:
mode — auto/prompt/off behaviorquestions — range like 3-8 (min-max)Use as hard constraints.
Read plan directory:
plan.md — overview + phases listphase-*.md — all phase files| Category | Keywords |
|---|---|
| Architecture | approach, pattern, design, structure, database, API |
| Assumptions | assume, expect, should, will, must, default |
| Tradeoffs | tradeoff, vs, alternative, option, choice, either/or |
| Risks | risk, might, could fail, dependency, blocker, concern |
| Scope | phase, MVP, future, out of scope, nice to have |
| New Tech/Lib | install, add package, new dependency, npm install, dotnet add, unfamiliar framework names |
| Test Specs | TC-, test case, coverage, TDD, test specification |
| Preservation | auto-trigger on bugfix keywords in title/frontmatter — scan Preservation Inventory section |
Format rules:
Examples:
Category: Architecture
Question: "How should validation results be persisted?"
Options:
1. Save to plan.md frontmatter (Recommended) — updates existing plan
2. Create validation-answers.md — separate answers file
3. Don't persist — ephemeral validation only
Category: Assumptions
Question: "Plan assumes API rate limiting not needed. Correct?"
Options:
1. Yes, not needed for MVP
2. No, add basic rate limiting now (Recommended)
3. Defer to Phase 2
Category: Preservation (MANDATORY when title/frontmatter: fix, bug, regression, broken, defect)
Question: "List 2-3 inputs where CURRENT code is correct. Will fix change behavior on any?"
Options (multi-select):
1. "Current code correct on: {input A}. Fix preserves behavior." (Recommended)
2. "Current code correct on: {input B}. Fix CHANGES behavior because: {justification}"
3. "Current code has NO preserved-correctness inputs — every input was broken" (rare; requires confirmation)
4. "Unsure — need to investigate" (STOP: run $plan preservation analysis)
Follow-up rules:
plan.md Preservation Inventory MUST cite Preservation TC asserting new behavior is intended$plan before proceedingUse a direct user question — NEVER skip or auto-answer.
Rules:
## Plan Context → Validation: mode=X, questions=MIN-MAXAdd ## Validation Summary to plan.md:
## Validation Summary
**Validated:** {date}
**Questions asked:** {count}
### Confirmed Decisions
- {decision 1}: {user choice}
- {decision 2}: {user choice}
### Action Items
- [ ] {changes needed based on answers}
NEVER modify phase files — only document what needs updating.
After validation:
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing, use a direct user question to present:
[BLOCKING] MUST ATTENTION use a direct user question to interview user. Completing without asking ≥1 question = violation.
[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.
External Memory: Complex/lengthy work → write findings + results to
plans/reports/— prevents context loss.
Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim requires
file:lineproof or traced evidence with confidence % (>80% act, <80% verify first).
Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the
[Workflow] ...row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.
- Call the current task list first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set
nested=trueand recordparentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.- Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects
[N.M] $skill-name — phase.- When nested, link the parent with
TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).- Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
- Mark exactly one child
in_progressbefore work andcompletedimmediately after evidence is written.- 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.
Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.
- Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
- Mark one task
in_progressbefore work andcompletedimmediately after evidence; never batch transitions.- For plan/review work, create
plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.mdbefore first finding.- Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
- 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):
Thought N/M: [aspect]— one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertaintyThought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ...— when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / ImpactThought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ...— explore alternative; converge with decision rationaleThought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ...then[VERIFICATION]: ...— test before actingThought 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
$sequential-thinkingskill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).
Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.
- Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
- Required docs by trigger: always
docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookupdocs-index-reference.md; reviewcode-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/APIbackend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entitydomain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UIfrontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/designscss-styling-guide.md+design-system/design-system-canonical.md; integration testsintegration-test-reference.md; E2Ee2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specsfeature-spec-reference.md+spec-system-reference.md+spec-principles.md; behavior/public-contract/spec-test-code syncworkflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md; derived spec index/ERD/reimplementation guidesspec-system-reference.md+ source Feature Specs underdocs/specs/; architecture/new areaproject-structure-reference.md.- Read every required doc. If
docs/project-config.json, the docs index,lessons.md,CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.md, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run$project-initor the narrow lower-level route ($project-config,$docs-init,$scan-all,$scan --target=<key>,$claude-md-init) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors orAGENTS.mdare missing/stale, ask the user to run$sync-codex; do not auto-run it.- Before target work, state:
Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....Ready when: scope evaluated, required docs checked/read or setup route completed,
lessons.mdconfirmed, citation emitted.
Understand Code First — HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.
- Search 3+ similar patterns (
grep/glob) — citefile:lineevidence- Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions
- Run
python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --jsonwhen.code-graph/graph.dbexists- Map dependencies via
connectionsorcallers_of— know what depends on your target- Write investigation to
.ai/workspace/analysis/for non-trivial tasks (3+ files)- Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone. — why: long context drifts from the file; the file is ground truth
- NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation. — why: divergent patterns fragment the codebase and slow every future reader
BLOCKED until:
- [ ]Read target files- [ ]Grep 3+ patterns- [ ]Graph trace (if graph.db exists)- [ ]Assumptions verified with evidence
Plan Quality — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.
- Add
## Test Specificationssection with TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file- Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit
TBDwith rationale)- TC IDs follow
TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}format — reference by ID, never embed full content- Before any new workflow step: call the current task list and re-read the phase file
- On context compaction: call the current task list FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
- 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 →$spec [mode=tests]fills after.
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,IntegrationEventEvent consumers Consumer,EventHandler,Subscribe,@EventListener,inboxSagas/orchestration Saga,ProcessManager,Choreography,Workflow,OrchestratorSync 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
AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:
Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.
file:line evidence for every claim. Confidence >80% to act, <60% = do NOT recommend.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include ## Test Specifications with TC IDs per phase. Call the current task list before creating new tasks.
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 + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.
MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see $sequential-thinking skill.
MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.
plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.Reference docs read: ....lessons.md; project conventions override generic defaults.$project-init or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.[N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.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
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Force every assumption-laden plan decision and every preservation-critical behavior through explicit user confirmation BEFORE implementation — by interviewing the user with critical questions that validate assumptions and surface issues — so no unstated assumption silently reaches code.
Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):
plans/reports/.lessons.md.## Test Specifications with TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} IDs per phase.IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with the user via a direct user question — NEVER auto-decide or self-answer; completing without ≥1 question is a protocol violation — why: the user owns every assumption-laden choice, not the agent
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect plan type FIRST (Phase 0) BEFORE generating questions — bugfix keywords (fix, bug, regression, broken, defect) make the Preservation question BLOCKING, never skipped — why: detection drives which categories fire and the Preservation gate
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER modify phase files — persist results by adding ONLY a ## Validation Summary (confirmed decisions + action items) to plan.md — why: phase files are the plan's source of truth and validation is a read-then-annotate pass
questions MIN-MAX range and mode from ## Plan Context as hard constraints; give 2-4 concrete options per question, never go below min — why: the interview budget is configured, not improvised$plan preservation analysis before any implementation — why: an unverified preserved-correctness invariant is a silent regression riskfile:line proof or traced evidence with confidence % for every claim (>80% act, <80% verify first); admit uncertainty rather than present a guess as fact — why: speculation drives wrong validation questionsAnti-Rationalization:
| Evasion | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| "Plan is simple, skip validation" | Simple plans still have implicit decisions. Apply anyway. |
| "Already know the answers" | Show user responses as proof. No responses = no validation. |
| "Preservation doesn't apply here" | If title has fix/bug/regression/broken/defect → ALWAYS applies. |
| "Phase 0 not needed" | Detection drives the Preservation gate. NEVER skip. |
| "Only ask a few questions" | Use the questions range from Plan Context. Never go below min. |
| "I'll just answer for the user" | a direct user question is mandatory. Self-answer = no validation. |
| "New library is obviously fine" | Probe whether alternatives were evaluated before accepting it. |
| "I'll edit the phase files inline" | NEVER. Add only a ## Validation Summary to plan.md. |
[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect plan type (Phase 0) FIRST — bugfix keywords make Preservation BLOCKING.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate with the user via a direct user question — NEVER auto-decide.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER modify phase files — add only a ## Validation Summary to plan.md.
Closing reminder — Easy to Change is the success metric. Every finding, test, refactor, and abstraction must answer one question: does this make the next change cheaper or more expensive? If it doesn't reduce future change cost, reject it. Coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, and unclear intent are the real enemies — call them out by name.
Source: .claude/.ck.json + .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md (:full blocks) + .claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs
Generic portability boundary: Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md. Read docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md, then open the project reference docs named there. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or docs/specs/ work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md, and workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init (or the narrow lower-level route such as $project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, or $scan --target=<key>) before ordinary project-specific work. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available.
$start-workflow <workflowId>; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task.Source: .claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md
AI-SDD Artifact Contract — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned.
- Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in
.claude; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs.- Preserve cycle:
spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs.- Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update.
- Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner.
- Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional.
- Update
.claudesource first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit.agents,.codex, orAGENTS.md. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync- If
docs/project-config.json, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run$project-initor the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work.Active reference:
shared/sdd-artifact-contract.mdin the active skills root.
shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md; keep reusable AI-SDD in .claude and local rules in project docs..claude source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit .agents, .codex, or AGENTS.md.$project-init or the narrow setup route automatically.
[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.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:
$learn.$code-review/$code-simplifier/$security-review/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.$learn.
[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.
Goal-driven execution: Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass.
Tests verify intent: Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior.$start-workflow <workflowId>. NEVER answer or write code before checking. Skip = protocol violation.