sahaidachny-task-structure

name	Sahaidachny Task Structure
description	Use this skill when working with Sahaidachny task planning. Activated when: - User mentions "task", "planning", "user stories", "design decisions" - Working in a `task-XX/` directory - Any `/saha:*` command is invoked
version	0.3.0

Sahaidachny Task Structure (saha/v2)

Sahaidachny plans complex features before implementation. In format saha/v2 the plan is not a pile of markdown: the spec is a LikeC4 model the human reviews as diagrams, and all tracking lives in one YAML file the tooling reads and writes.

The Two-File Rule (the core invariant)

• model/*.c4 = spec. Written during planning, reviewed visually, then frozen when execution starts (the loop fingerprints the files; any edit fails the DoD integrity gate). No statuses, no checkmarks, ever.
• progress.yaml = tracking. The ONLY mutable file. Planning steps, story/AC statuses, test bindings, phase progress, iteration history — all here, and only the execution loop's manager phase writes it during execution.

Tools (saha commands, the sich kanban app, the execution loop) read state from progress.yaml — never by scraping markdown.

Task Folder Structure

task-XX-short-name/
├── progress.yaml          # THE tracking file (format: saha/v2 marker lives here)
├── model/                 # one LikeC4 project, built/validated as a unit
│   ├── spec.c4            # element kinds + tags (actor, component, story, decision, phase…)
│   ├── task.c4            # task description: context model + `view task-context`
│   ├── stories.c4         # one `dynamic view us-NNN-flow` per user story
│   ├── decisions.c4       # DD-XXX decision elements wired to affected components
│   ├── contracts.c4       # interface contracts: components + `metadata { contract '''…''' }`
│   ├── test-specs.c4      # test scenarios as `ts-*` dynamic views
│   └── phases.c4          # plan overview: phase elements + dependency arrows
├── research/*.md          # research stays markdown (prose)
└── README.md              # 5-line human pointer (title, status, "open in sich")

Templates for every file live in claude_plugin/templates/ (spec.c4, task.c4, stories.c4, decisions.c4, contracts.c4, test-specs.c4, phases.c4, progress.yaml, plus research-report.md).

progress.yaml Schema

format: saha/v2                # presence of this key = new-format task
task: task-11-likec4-planning
title: …
created: 2026-07-17
mode: full                     # full | minimal
status: planning               # planning -> executing -> completed | completed_pending_manual | failed

planning:                      # one entry per planning step; status: pending | in_progress | done | skipped
  research:            { status: done, artifacts: [research/codebase-analysis.md] }
  task_description:    { status: done, views: [task-context] }
  user_stories:        { status: in_progress, views: [us-001-flow, us-002-flow] }
  design_decisions:    { status: pending, views: [] }        # -> [decisions]
  code_changes:        { status: pending, views: [] }        # -> [contracts]
  test_specs:          { status: pending, views: [], gaps: [] }  # gaps: [{story: US-003, reason: …}]
  implementation_plan: {  ,  [] }        
                {   }


    
     
               
                  
                   
     
    
                       
         
               
        
                 
         []     
         []              
     [{  ,  ,   }]
     []             
     []              


    
     
     
     []
                 
    
       {  ,  [],   }

 []                 

Key semantics:

• verify: is how the loop proves an AC: automated = bound named tests go red→green; build = compilation/launch proves it (empty tests: is fine); manual = human eyes, with exact manual_instructions — the loop never ticks it, and a task whose only remaining ACs are manual ends as completed_pending_manual.
• specs: vs tests: — planned coverage (view ids) vs. actual bindings (real runnable test identifiers). Only the manager writes tests:, copying passing bindings reported by QA.
• The loop's runtime state lives separately in .sahaidachny/<task>-execution-state.yaml; the toolchain profile in .sahaidachny/stack.yaml (or marker-file auto-detect).

LikeC4 Model Conventions

All model/*.c4 files form one project; spec.c4 declares the shared kinds (actor, container, component, store, external, story, decision, phase) and tags (#must #should #could, #existing #new).

Stable ids bind diagrams ↔ YAML

Thing	Model id	View id	progress.yaml
Task overview	—	task-context	planning.task_description.views
User story	us-001 (element)	us-001-flow (dynamic view)	stories[].id: US-001, view:
Design decision	dd-001	decisions (one overview view)	stories[].decisions: [DD-001]
Contracts	components under extend	contracts	planning.code_changes.views
Test scenario	—	ts-e2e-01 / ts-int-01 / ts-unit-01	AC specs: lists
Phase	phase-01	phases (one overview view)	phases[].id

Per-file rules

• task.c4 — context model of the system under change. Tag every element #existing or #new so the delta is visible; goals/non-goals/constraints go in metadata {}; the overview view MUST be named task-context.
• stories.c4 — THIS is what the human reviews: each story is a walkable dynamic view (actor → system → back, <- for responses, parallel {} for concurrency). Cite AC ids in step notes (**AC-1** — …) so the reviewer sees where each criterion is proven — but AC status/text authority stays in the YAML.
• decisions.c4 — one decision element per DD with context/decision in description, rationale/alternatives/consequences in metadata {}, and a relation to every component it constrains (dd-001 -> sys.new_part 'shapes').
• contracts.c4 — one component per created/changed interface; the contract shape (signature, input/output fields with types, error cases) goes in metadata { contract '''…''' } with contract_kind 'function|rest|event|cli'; relations carry the calls (caller -> callee 'METHOD /path').
• test-specs.c4 — each scenario is a dynamic view: preconditions/environment in the view description (with **Proves:** US-001.AC-1), per-step **Expected:** observations in notes. Walk the SAME elements as the story flow it verifies. The description also declares the test-double boundary: **Real:** (what executes for real) and **Mocked:** (each fake + why, or "nothing"). Every story needs a ts-e2e-* happy-path scenario (or a test_specs.gaps entry); an E2E view may mock only true externals — never the system under test.
• phases.c4 — phase elements with -> arrows for hard dependencies and phase -> story 'delivers' relations; step-level detail (files, statuses) stays in the YAML.

Validation

likec4 validate {task_path}/model

is THE well-formedness gate (used by /saha:verify and reviewers). Do NOT gate on likec4 export json — it exits 0 even on broken models.

Authoring gotchas:

• Re-opening a nested element from another file requires extend sys.new_part { … }, not re-declaration.
• kind is a reserved key inside metadata {} — use contract_kind.
• Element ids must not be LikeC4 property keywords (summary, title, description, technology, link, icon, style, metadata, navigateTo) — validate fails with a cryptic Expecting token '}'. Prefix instead: repo_summary, not summary.
• Prose belongs in description '''…''' and step notes '''…''' (markdown renders); structured facts belong in metadata {}.

---

Choosing a Planning Path

Two independent considerations decide how much planning a task needs. Don't conflate them:

• Scope — small (a 1-2 file fix, a tiny feature) vs. large (multi-component).
• Context — greenfield (new area, little existing code) vs. existing codebase (patterns and architecture matter).

	Small scope	Large scope
Greenfield	/saha:quick	full planning flow
Existing codebase	/saha:quick	full planning flow

Scope, not context, picks the path. The codebase scan adapts to context: for an existing codebase it grounds artifacts in real files; for greenfield it proceeds from the description without inventing references.

Quick Path (small tasks)

One command, one pass, no separate review gate:

1. /saha:quick "<one-line task>" — light codebase scan, then the minimum the loop needs: model/spec.c4 + model/task.c4 + one us-001-flow in model/stories.c4, and a progress.yaml with one story (ACs with verify: methods = the definition of done) and one phase.
2. /saha:execute — the full verify loop runs unchanged.

Full Path (large tasks)

The multi-step planning chain, each step verified before the next:

1. Research (/saha:research → research/*.md)
2. Task Description (/saha:task → model/task.c4)
3. User Stories + Verification (/saha:stories → model/stories.c4 + YAML records)
4. Design Decisions + Verification (/saha:decide → model/decisions.c4)
5. Code Changes + Verification (/saha:contracts → model/contracts.c4)
6. Test Specs + Verification (/saha:test-specs → model/test-specs.c4 + AC specs:)
7. Implementation Plan + Verification (/saha:plan → model/phases.c4 + YAML phases)

Both paths feed the same execution loop. The loop's only requirement is a progress.yaml with format: saha/v2, at least one story whose ACs carry verify: methods, and at least one phase — plus a model that passes likec4 validate.

---

Naming Conventions

Thing	Pattern	Example
Task folder	task-XX-short-name/	task-05-user-auth/
Story id / view	US-XXX / us-xxx-flow	US-001 / us-001-flow
Qualified AC id	US-XXX.AC-N	US-001.AC-2
Decision id	DD-XXX / element dd-xxx	DD-001 / dd-001
Phase id	phase-XX	phase-01
Test view	ts-{e2e,int,unit}-NN	ts-e2e-01

Legacy Tasks

A task folder without a format: saha/v2 progress.yaml is old-format (markdown artifacts: task-description.md, user-stories/*.md, …). /saha:execute refuses those and routes them to the old Python path (saha run); the kanban app still renders them via its legacy marker-scraping fallback. New planning always produces saha/v2.