@anhth2/spec-driven-dev-plugin 0.12.0 → 0.14.0

package/skills/debug/SKILL.md

@@ -108,7 +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`
@@ -119,6 +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.)*
@@ -128,8 +129,9 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - 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.
 
 ---
 
@@ -149,12 +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).
 
@@ -456,6 +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:
@@ -497,10 +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.)*
 
 
 ---
@@ -607,6 +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:
@@ -648,10 +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.)*
 
 
 ---
@@ -715,6 +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:
@@ -756,8 +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

@@ -182,7 +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`
@@ -193,6 +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.)*
@@ -202,8 +203,9 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - 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.
 
 ---
 
@@ -223,12 +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).
 
@@ -485,6 +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:
@@ -526,10 +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

@@ -87,7 +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`
@@ -98,6 +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.)*
@@ -107,8 +108,9 @@ If `services` section is present:
 - 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.
 
 ---
 
@@ -128,12 +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).
 
@@ -466,6 +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:
@@ -507,8 +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/setup-ai-first/SKILL.md

@@ -126,6 +126,36 @@ 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:
@@ -167,8 +197,11 @@ 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.)*