@anhth2/spec-driven-dev-plugin 0.11.0 → 0.14.0

package/skills/debug/SKILL.md

@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ Read `.agent/project-context.yaml`. Extract and store:
 - `paths.specs_dir` → BDD specs root
 - `paths.prd_dir` → PRD documents root
 - `paths.refinement_dir` → findings/review output dir
+- `paths.qc_dir` → QC automation artifacts root (visible top-level, one subfolder per UC: `{qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/`)
+- `paths.qc_skills_dir` → where qc-* commands load QC skills from (default bundled `.agent/skills/qc`; override to the QC team's own repo/submodule so framework upgrade won't overwrite them)
 - `paths.product_definitions_dir` → product definitions root
 - `paths.domain_knowledge_dir` → domain knowledge root
 - `paths.business_dictionary` → path to business-dictionary.md
@@ -79,6 +81,8 @@ If `paths` section is absent, use these defaults:
 - `specs_dir` = `specs/bdd`
 - `prd_dir` = `specs/prd`
 - `refinement_dir` = `.agent/review`
+- `qc_dir` = `docs`
+- `qc_skills_dir` = `.agent/skills/qc`
 - `product_definitions_dir` = `specs/product-definition`
 - `domain_knowledge_dir` = `specs/domain-knowledge`
 - `business_dictionary` = `specs/domain-knowledge/business-dictionary.md`
@@ -104,7 +108,7 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - If `$ARGUMENTS` contains a path, extract the segment after `prd_dir`
 
 **2. Route to service** — if active domain matches a key in `services`:
-- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `services.{domain}.specs_dir`
+- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `services.{domain}.specs_dir` — **only if `setup.spec_source` is NOT set.** When `spec_source` IS set, ALL BDD (web/app/**system**) is a shared cross-team artifact → leave `specs_dir` for step 4 to route to the spec repo; do NOT pin it per-service here.
 - Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `services.{domain}.tech_docs_dir` — **only if `setup.spec_source` is NOT set.** When `spec_source` IS set, the tech-design (API contract) is a cross-team artifact and must live in the shared spec repo (handled in step 4), so leave `tech_docs_dir` for step 4 to route — do NOT pin it per-service here.
 - Store `active_service` = `services.{domain}.path`
 - Store `active_service_module` = `services.{domain}.module`
@@ -115,6 +119,7 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - Set `active_service = unresolved`
 
 **4. Spec source auto-override** — if `setup.spec_source` is set AND the corresponding path was not already explicitly set in `paths:`:
+- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/bdd` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** All BDD (web/app/**system**) lives in the shared spec repo so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads the same scenarios; the FE tech-design gate + `/generate-code --phase=ui`/`--phase=integration` resolve the `system/` BDD here. *(Per-service `specs/bdd` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
 - Override `paths.prd_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/prd`
 - Override `paths.design_spec_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/design-spec`
 - Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/tech-docs` — **always when `spec_source` is set** (step 2 no longer pins tech-docs per-service in this case). The tech-design IS the cross-team API contract: BE authors it here, and FE/App read it from the same spec submodule at `/generate-code --phase=integration`. *(Per-service tech-docs only happen when there is no `spec_source` — a pure multi-service BE repo with no shared spec module.)*
@@ -123,8 +128,10 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - Override `paths.core_entities` → `{spec_source}/specs/domain-knowledge/core-entities.md`
 - Override `paths.bug_reports_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bug-reports`
 - Override `paths.bdd_proposals_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bdd-proposals`
+- Override `paths.prd_change_requests_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/prd-change-requests`
+- Override `paths.trace_dir` → `{spec_source}/.trace` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** Trace TSVs are consolidated in the spec repo (single authoritative location, no per-service split) so the PM/PO has one place to manage status. Code-side commands (`/generate-code`, `/dev-run-test`, `/qc-run-test`) run from `service_root` but **write their trace row into `{spec_source}/.trace`** — like they already push `feedback/` there. *(Per-service `.trace` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
 
-> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, design-spec, domain knowledge, the **API contract (tech-docs)**, and tester feedback are all **cross-team artifacts** — they must live in the **shared spec repo** so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads the same source via `/sync`. Tech-docs specifically: BE authors the tech-design (API contract), commits + pushes it into the spec submodule (2-layer commit), and FE/App pull it on their next `/sync` to wire the real API in `/generate-code --phase=integration`. In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), these default under the repo root — still shared, same repo.
+> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, design-spec, domain knowledge, **all BDD (web/app/system)**, the **API contract (tech-docs)**, tester feedback, **and the `.trace/` coverage state** are all **cross-team artifacts** — they live in the **shared spec repo** so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) and the PM read one source via `/sync`. The service submodule holds only **code** (+ build/test tooling). `.trace/` and `feedback/` are the dev/QC **write areas** in the spec repo (the PRD/BDD/design-spec/tech-docs there stay read-only for dev/QC — only PO edits those). In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), everything defaults under the repo root — still one repo.
 
 ---
 
@@ -144,12 +151,12 @@ When `active_service` has been resolved to a real path in Step 1.5 (e.g., `user-
 |----------|--------|
 | `conventions.test_command` | service's `conventions.test_command` |
 | `conventions.build_command` | service's `conventions.build_command` |
-| `paths.trace_dir` | `{active_service}/{service paths.trace_dir}` — default: `{active_service}/.trace` |
-| `paths.specs_dir` | `{active_service}/{service paths.specs_dir}` (if set in service config, else keep Step 1.5 override) |
+| `paths.trace_dir` | **If `spec_source` is set → keep the Step 4 spec-repo route (`{spec_source}/.trace`); ignore any service-level `trace_dir`.** Only when there is no `spec_source`: `{active_service}/{service paths.trace_dir}` (default `{active_service}/.trace`). |
+| `paths.specs_dir` | **If `spec_source` is set → keep the Step 4 spec-repo route (`{spec_source}/specs/bdd`); ignore any service-level `specs_dir`** (BDD is cross-team, never per-service in this mode). Only when there is no `spec_source`: `{active_service}/{service paths.specs_dir}` if set, else the Step 1.5 override. |
 
 **3. Store** `service_root = {active_service}` as the working directory anchor for all downstream commands:
 - Shell commands (`/dev-run-test`, `/dev-gen-test`) run **from within** `service_root`
-- File write operations (test files, trace TSVs) use paths **relative to** `service_root`
+- **Source/test files** are written relative to `service_root`; **trace TSVs** are written to `{paths.trace_dir}` (the spec repo when `spec_source` is set — a cross-repo write, committed/pushed to the spec submodule like `feedback/`).
 
 **4. If service config not found** — keep umbrella defaults, still set `service_root = {active_service}` (path anchor is always needed even without a config override).
 
@@ -451,6 +458,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -492,10 +529,13 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 
 
 ---
@@ -602,6 +642,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -643,10 +713,13 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 
 
 ---
@@ -710,6 +783,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -751,8 +854,11 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 

package/skills/design-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -141,6 +141,8 @@ Read `.agent/project-context.yaml`. Extract and store:
 - `paths.specs_dir` → BDD specs root
 - `paths.prd_dir` → PRD documents root
 - `paths.refinement_dir` → findings/review output dir
+- `paths.qc_dir` → QC automation artifacts root (visible top-level, one subfolder per UC: `{qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/`)
+- `paths.qc_skills_dir` → where qc-* commands load QC skills from (default bundled `.agent/skills/qc`; override to the QC team's own repo/submodule so framework upgrade won't overwrite them)
 - `paths.product_definitions_dir` → product definitions root
 - `paths.domain_knowledge_dir` → domain knowledge root
 - `paths.business_dictionary` → path to business-dictionary.md
@@ -153,6 +155,8 @@ If `paths` section is absent, use these defaults:
 - `specs_dir` = `specs/bdd`
 - `prd_dir` = `specs/prd`
 - `refinement_dir` = `.agent/review`
+- `qc_dir` = `docs`
+- `qc_skills_dir` = `.agent/skills/qc`
 - `product_definitions_dir` = `specs/product-definition`
 - `domain_knowledge_dir` = `specs/domain-knowledge`
 - `business_dictionary` = `specs/domain-knowledge/business-dictionary.md`
@@ -178,7 +182,7 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - If `$ARGUMENTS` contains a path, extract the segment after `prd_dir`
 
 **2. Route to service** — if active domain matches a key in `services`:
-- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `services.{domain}.specs_dir`
+- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `services.{domain}.specs_dir` — **only if `setup.spec_source` is NOT set.** When `spec_source` IS set, ALL BDD (web/app/**system**) is a shared cross-team artifact → leave `specs_dir` for step 4 to route to the spec repo; do NOT pin it per-service here.
 - Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `services.{domain}.tech_docs_dir` — **only if `setup.spec_source` is NOT set.** When `spec_source` IS set, the tech-design (API contract) is a cross-team artifact and must live in the shared spec repo (handled in step 4), so leave `tech_docs_dir` for step 4 to route — do NOT pin it per-service here.
 - Store `active_service` = `services.{domain}.path`
 - Store `active_service_module` = `services.{domain}.module`
@@ -189,6 +193,7 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - Set `active_service = unresolved`
 
 **4. Spec source auto-override** — if `setup.spec_source` is set AND the corresponding path was not already explicitly set in `paths:`:
+- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/bdd` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** All BDD (web/app/**system**) lives in the shared spec repo so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads the same scenarios; the FE tech-design gate + `/generate-code --phase=ui`/`--phase=integration` resolve the `system/` BDD here. *(Per-service `specs/bdd` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
 - Override `paths.prd_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/prd`
 - Override `paths.design_spec_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/design-spec`
 - Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/tech-docs` — **always when `spec_source` is set** (step 2 no longer pins tech-docs per-service in this case). The tech-design IS the cross-team API contract: BE authors it here, and FE/App read it from the same spec submodule at `/generate-code --phase=integration`. *(Per-service tech-docs only happen when there is no `spec_source` — a pure multi-service BE repo with no shared spec module.)*
@@ -197,8 +202,10 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - Override `paths.core_entities` → `{spec_source}/specs/domain-knowledge/core-entities.md`
 - Override `paths.bug_reports_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bug-reports`
 - Override `paths.bdd_proposals_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bdd-proposals`
+- Override `paths.prd_change_requests_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/prd-change-requests`
+- Override `paths.trace_dir` → `{spec_source}/.trace` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** Trace TSVs are consolidated in the spec repo (single authoritative location, no per-service split) so the PM/PO has one place to manage status. Code-side commands (`/generate-code`, `/dev-run-test`, `/qc-run-test`) run from `service_root` but **write their trace row into `{spec_source}/.trace`** — like they already push `feedback/` there. *(Per-service `.trace` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
 
-> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, design-spec, domain knowledge, the **API contract (tech-docs)**, and tester feedback are all **cross-team artifacts** — they must live in the **shared spec repo** so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads the same source via `/sync`. Tech-docs specifically: BE authors the tech-design (API contract), commits + pushes it into the spec submodule (2-layer commit), and FE/App pull it on their next `/sync` to wire the real API in `/generate-code --phase=integration`. In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), these default under the repo root — still shared, same repo.
+> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, design-spec, domain knowledge, **all BDD (web/app/system)**, the **API contract (tech-docs)**, tester feedback, **and the `.trace/` coverage state** are all **cross-team artifacts** — they live in the **shared spec repo** so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) and the PM read one source via `/sync`. The service submodule holds only **code** (+ build/test tooling). `.trace/` and `feedback/` are the dev/QC **write areas** in the spec repo (the PRD/BDD/design-spec/tech-docs there stay read-only for dev/QC — only PO edits those). In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), everything defaults under the repo root — still one repo.
 
 ---
 
@@ -218,12 +225,12 @@ When `active_service` has been resolved to a real path in Step 1.5 (e.g., `user-
 |----------|--------|
 | `conventions.test_command` | service's `conventions.test_command` |
 | `conventions.build_command` | service's `conventions.build_command` |
-| `paths.trace_dir` | `{active_service}/{service paths.trace_dir}` — default: `{active_service}/.trace` |
-| `paths.specs_dir` | `{active_service}/{service paths.specs_dir}` (if set in service config, else keep Step 1.5 override) |
+| `paths.trace_dir` | **If `spec_source` is set → keep the Step 4 spec-repo route (`{spec_source}/.trace`); ignore any service-level `trace_dir`.** Only when there is no `spec_source`: `{active_service}/{service paths.trace_dir}` (default `{active_service}/.trace`). |
+| `paths.specs_dir` | **If `spec_source` is set → keep the Step 4 spec-repo route (`{spec_source}/specs/bdd`); ignore any service-level `specs_dir`** (BDD is cross-team, never per-service in this mode). Only when there is no `spec_source`: `{active_service}/{service paths.specs_dir}` if set, else the Step 1.5 override. |
 
 **3. Store** `service_root = {active_service}` as the working directory anchor for all downstream commands:
 - Shell commands (`/dev-run-test`, `/dev-gen-test`) run **from within** `service_root`
-- File write operations (test files, trace TSVs) use paths **relative to** `service_root`
+- **Source/test files** are written relative to `service_root`; **trace TSVs** are written to `{paths.trace_dir}` (the spec repo when `spec_source` is set — a cross-repo write, committed/pushed to the spec submodule like `feedback/`).
 
 **4. If service config not found** — keep umbrella defaults, still set `service_root = {active_service}` (path anchor is always needed even without a config override).
 
@@ -480,6 +487,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -521,10 +558,13 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 
 
 ```

package/skills/discovery/SKILL.md

@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ Read `.agent/project-context.yaml`. Extract and store:
 - `paths.specs_dir` → BDD specs root
 - `paths.prd_dir` → PRD documents root
 - `paths.refinement_dir` → findings/review output dir
+- `paths.qc_dir` → QC automation artifacts root (visible top-level, one subfolder per UC: `{qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/`)
+- `paths.qc_skills_dir` → where qc-* commands load QC skills from (default bundled `.agent/skills/qc`; override to the QC team's own repo/submodule so framework upgrade won't overwrite them)
 - `paths.product_definitions_dir` → product definitions root
 - `paths.domain_knowledge_dir` → domain knowledge root
 - `paths.business_dictionary` → path to business-dictionary.md
@@ -58,6 +60,8 @@ If `paths` section is absent, use these defaults:
 - `specs_dir` = `specs/bdd`
 - `prd_dir` = `specs/prd`
 - `refinement_dir` = `.agent/review`
+- `qc_dir` = `docs`
+- `qc_skills_dir` = `.agent/skills/qc`
 - `product_definitions_dir` = `specs/product-definition`
 - `domain_knowledge_dir` = `specs/domain-knowledge`
 - `business_dictionary` = `specs/domain-knowledge/business-dictionary.md`
@@ -83,7 +87,7 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - If `$ARGUMENTS` contains a path, extract the segment after `prd_dir`
 
 **2. Route to service** — if active domain matches a key in `services`:
-- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `services.{domain}.specs_dir`
+- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `services.{domain}.specs_dir` — **only if `setup.spec_source` is NOT set.** When `spec_source` IS set, ALL BDD (web/app/**system**) is a shared cross-team artifact → leave `specs_dir` for step 4 to route to the spec repo; do NOT pin it per-service here.
 - Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `services.{domain}.tech_docs_dir` — **only if `setup.spec_source` is NOT set.** When `spec_source` IS set, the tech-design (API contract) is a cross-team artifact and must live in the shared spec repo (handled in step 4), so leave `tech_docs_dir` for step 4 to route — do NOT pin it per-service here.
 - Store `active_service` = `services.{domain}.path`
 - Store `active_service_module` = `services.{domain}.module`
@@ -94,6 +98,7 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - Set `active_service = unresolved`
 
 **4. Spec source auto-override** — if `setup.spec_source` is set AND the corresponding path was not already explicitly set in `paths:`:
+- Override `paths.specs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/bdd` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** All BDD (web/app/**system**) lives in the shared spec repo so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads the same scenarios; the FE tech-design gate + `/generate-code --phase=ui`/`--phase=integration` resolve the `system/` BDD here. *(Per-service `specs/bdd` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
 - Override `paths.prd_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/prd`
 - Override `paths.design_spec_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/design-spec`
 - Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/tech-docs` — **always when `spec_source` is set** (step 2 no longer pins tech-docs per-service in this case). The tech-design IS the cross-team API contract: BE authors it here, and FE/App read it from the same spec submodule at `/generate-code --phase=integration`. *(Per-service tech-docs only happen when there is no `spec_source` — a pure multi-service BE repo with no shared spec module.)*
@@ -102,8 +107,10 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - Override `paths.core_entities` → `{spec_source}/specs/domain-knowledge/core-entities.md`
 - Override `paths.bug_reports_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bug-reports`
 - Override `paths.bdd_proposals_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bdd-proposals`
+- Override `paths.prd_change_requests_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/prd-change-requests`
+- Override `paths.trace_dir` → `{spec_source}/.trace` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** Trace TSVs are consolidated in the spec repo (single authoritative location, no per-service split) so the PM/PO has one place to manage status. Code-side commands (`/generate-code`, `/dev-run-test`, `/qc-run-test`) run from `service_root` but **write their trace row into `{spec_source}/.trace`** — like they already push `feedback/` there. *(Per-service `.trace` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
 
-> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, design-spec, domain knowledge, the **API contract (tech-docs)**, and tester feedback are all **cross-team artifacts** — they must live in the **shared spec repo** so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads the same source via `/sync`. Tech-docs specifically: BE authors the tech-design (API contract), commits + pushes it into the spec submodule (2-layer commit), and FE/App pull it on their next `/sync` to wire the real API in `/generate-code --phase=integration`. In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), these default under the repo root — still shared, same repo.
+> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, design-spec, domain knowledge, **all BDD (web/app/system)**, the **API contract (tech-docs)**, tester feedback, **and the `.trace/` coverage state** are all **cross-team artifacts** — they live in the **shared spec repo** so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) and the PM read one source via `/sync`. The service submodule holds only **code** (+ build/test tooling). `.trace/` and `feedback/` are the dev/QC **write areas** in the spec repo (the PRD/BDD/design-spec/tech-docs there stay read-only for dev/QC — only PO edits those). In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), everything defaults under the repo root — still one repo.
 
 ---
 
@@ -123,12 +130,12 @@ When `active_service` has been resolved to a real path in Step 1.5 (e.g., `user-
 |----------|--------|
 | `conventions.test_command` | service's `conventions.test_command` |
 | `conventions.build_command` | service's `conventions.build_command` |
-| `paths.trace_dir` | `{active_service}/{service paths.trace_dir}` — default: `{active_service}/.trace` |
-| `paths.specs_dir` | `{active_service}/{service paths.specs_dir}` (if set in service config, else keep Step 1.5 override) |
+| `paths.trace_dir` | **If `spec_source` is set → keep the Step 4 spec-repo route (`{spec_source}/.trace`); ignore any service-level `trace_dir`.** Only when there is no `spec_source`: `{active_service}/{service paths.trace_dir}` (default `{active_service}/.trace`). |
+| `paths.specs_dir` | **If `spec_source` is set → keep the Step 4 spec-repo route (`{spec_source}/specs/bdd`); ignore any service-level `specs_dir`** (BDD is cross-team, never per-service in this mode). Only when there is no `spec_source`: `{active_service}/{service paths.specs_dir}` if set, else the Step 1.5 override. |
 
 **3. Store** `service_root = {active_service}` as the working directory anchor for all downstream commands:
 - Shell commands (`/dev-run-test`, `/dev-gen-test`) run **from within** `service_root`
-- File write operations (test files, trace TSVs) use paths **relative to** `service_root`
+- **Source/test files** are written relative to `service_root`; **trace TSVs** are written to `{paths.trace_dir}` (the spec repo when `spec_source` is set — a cross-repo write, committed/pushed to the spec submodule like `feedback/`).
 
 **4. If service config not found** — keep umbrella defaults, still set `service_root = {active_service}` (path anchor is always needed even without a config override).
 
@@ -461,6 +468,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -502,8 +539,11 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 

package/skills/prd/SKILL.md

@@ -180,6 +180,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -221,10 +251,13 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 
 
 ---
@@ -436,6 +469,36 @@ Output Artifacts:
 
 If no files were written (e.g., review or analysis commands) → write `Output Artifacts: none (read-only)`.
 
+## Pipeline Position
+
+Print a one-line map of the pipeline with the CURRENT command's phase marked `◀ bạn ở đây`,
+so the user always sees where this command sits in the end-to-end flow:
+
+```
+Discovery → PRD → [Design Spec] → BDD → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+```
+
+Find the current command in this phase legend and mark **its** phase in the map above:
+
+| Phase | Commands |
+|-------|----------|
+| Discovery | `/define-product` |
+| PRD | `/generate-prd` · `/refine-prd` · `/review-context` (PRD) |
+| Design Spec | `/generate-design-spec` |
+| BDD | `/generate-bdd` · `/review-context` (BDD) |
+| Tech Design | `/generate-tech-docs` · `/map-testids` · `/review-tech-docs` |
+| Code | `/generate-code` · `/review-code` |
+| Dev Self-Check | `/dev-gen-test` · `/dev-run-test` · `/dev-smoke-test` |
+| QC | `/qc-analyze` · `/qc-plan` · `/qc-design-test` · `/qc-review` · `/qc-run-test` · `/qc-report` |
+| Trace Audit | `/validate-traces` |
+
+For a **review command**, also append the 3-step review loop with the current step marked, e.g.:
+`Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume`.
+
+**Cross-cutting commands** (`/sync`, `/update-framework`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`, `/learn`,
+`/report-bug`, `/propose-scenario`, `/generate-spec-manifest`) sit outside the linear pipeline —
+**omit the Pipeline line entirely** for these (do not force-fit them onto the map).
+
 ## Next Command Suggestion
 
 Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
@@ -477,8 +540,11 @@ Suggest the logical next command based on workflow phase:
 Format the footer as:
 ```
 ---
-Status : {badge}
+Status   : {badge}
 {Output Artifacts block}
-Next   : {suggested command with example arguments}
+Pipeline : Discovery → PRD → [BDD ◀ bạn ở đây] → Tech Design → Code → Dev Self-Check → QC → Trace Audit
+           (review cmd) Vòng review: [① phân tích ◀] → ② Review Board → ③ --resume
+Next     : {suggested command with example arguments}
 ```
+*(Omit the `Pipeline` line for cross-cutting commands listed above.)*
 

package/skills/qc/qa-analyst/acceptance-criteria.md

@@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ Mỗi AC gắn mã trace: chức năng + BR-xx để TC sau này map 1-1.
 
 ## Output
 
-- Danh sách AC dạng Given/When/Then, có mã trace về chức năng và business rule.
+Ghi vào **mục Acceptance Criteria** của `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md`
+(KHÔNG tạo file riêng — qc-analyze chỉ trả 2 file: `REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md` + `DOC_GAPS.md`):
+
+- Danh sách AC dạng Given/When/Then, có mã trace về chức năng, business rule (BR-xx)
+  và scenario chính thức `{UC-ID}-SC{N}` của `.feature`.
 - Bảng ma trận: BR / chức năng × AC để xác nhận không bỏ sót.
 - Đây là đầu vào trực tiếp cho `qa-designer` (mỗi AC → ≥1 test case) và `qa-reviewer` (đối chiếu coverage).

package/skills/qc/qa-analyst/business-rules.md

@@ -49,7 +49,11 @@ Với rule có nhiều điều kiện kết hợp → gợi ý dựng **Decision
 
 ## Output
 
+Ghi vào **mục Business Rules** của `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md`
+(KHÔNG tạo file riêng — qc-analyze chỉ trả 2 file: `REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md` + `DOC_GAPS.md`):
+
 - Bảng business rule có ID (BR-xx) để TC trace ngược về.
-- Rule MÂU THUẪN / KHÔNG RÕ → ghi vào `DOC_GAPS.md` (loại CONTRADICTORY / AMBIGUOUS,
-  cột "Ảnh hưởng" trỏ BR-xx) rồi ghi vào `DOC_GAPS.md`.
 - Gợi ý các rule cần Decision Table / BVA khi sang qa-designer.
+
+Rule MÂU THUẪN / KHÔNG RÕ → ghi vào `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/DOC_GAPS.md`
+(loại CONTRADICTORY / AMBIGUOUS, cột "Ảnh hưởng" trỏ BR-xx).

package/skills/qc/qa-analyst/data-flow.md

@@ -52,9 +52,13 @@ Thể hiện luồng dạng bước tuần tự hoặc sơ đồ text:
 
 ## Output
 
+Ghi vào **mục Data Flow** của `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md`
+(KHÔNG tạo file riêng — qc-analyze chỉ trả 2 file: `REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md` + `DOC_GAPS.md`):
+
 - Sơ đồ/list luồng dữ liệu cho mỗi kịch bản chính.
 - Danh sách integration point + state change + failure point.
-- Chặng nào luồng/hành vi chưa rõ (vd lỗi xử lý ra sao, retry, partial commit) →
-  ghi vào `DOC_GAPS.md` (loại MISSING / OPEN QUESTION).
 - Gợi ý loại test cần cho từng điểm (gui-feature / integration / e2e) khi sang qa-designer.
 - Dữ liệu/trạng thái cần chuẩn bị & cleanup → đầu vào fixture cho qa-runner.
+
+Chặng nào luồng/hành vi chưa rõ (vd lỗi xử lý ra sao, retry, partial commit) →
+ghi vào `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/DOC_GAPS.md` (loại MISSING / OPEN QUESTION).

package/skills/qc/qa-analyst/spec-breakdown.md

@@ -46,12 +46,16 @@ F. GIẢ ĐỊNH & CÂU HỎI MỞ: điều suy ra được vs điều cần dev
 
 ## Output
 
-File Markdown mô tả yêu cầu có cấu trúc (đặt trong `docs/<project>/<feature>/`):
+⚠️ `/qc-analyze` chỉ ghi **ĐÚNG 2 FILE** cho mỗi UC, đặt trong thư mục QC **lộ ra ngoài**
+`{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/` (mặc định `docs/{UC-ID}/` — KHÔNG để trong `.agent/` ẩn):
+`REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md` + `DOC_GAPS.md`. KHÔNG tách mỗi bước phân tích thành file riêng.
+
+Phần spec-breakdown là **mục đầu tiên** của `REQUIREMENT_ANALYSIS.md`:
 - Bảng chức năng + input/output/constraint
 - Sơ đồ/list luồng chính & phụ
 - Danh sách giả định và câu hỏi mở (đánh dấu rõ điều CHƯA chắc)
 
-Đồng thời ghi mọi khoảng trống phát hiện vào `docs/<project>/<feature>/DOC_GAPS.md`
-(theo `.claude/skills/qa-analyst/DOC_GAPS.template.md`), mỗi gap có ID `GAP-xx`.
+Đồng thời ghi mọi khoảng trống phát hiện vào `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/DOC_GAPS.md`
+(theo `{paths.qc_skills_dir}/qa-analyst/DOC_GAPS.template.md`), mỗi gap có ID `GAP-xx`.
 
 Kết thúc bằng gợi ý: feature đã đủ rõ để chuyển sang `qa-planner` (phân tích rủi ro) chưa.

package/skills/qc/qa-designer/e2e/journey.md

@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ Mỗi journey → 1 TC bám Format; Expected = chuỗi verify point; chuẩn b
 **Journey phụ thuộc gap vẫn viết + 🚫 Block: GAP-xx**, định tuyến ghi "dự kiến theo BR". Trace BR.
 
 ## Output
-File TC e2e (hoặc nhóm E2E trong file feature) trong `docs/<project>/<feature>/`.
+File TC e2e (hoặc nhóm E2E trong file feature) trong `{paths.qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/test-cases/`.
 In bảng `E2E-ID | Journey | Pri | Trace | Block` + bảng TC block. Bàn giao `qa-reviewer`.