@bhargavvc/sdd-cc 1.30.1 → 1.35.0

package/sdd/workflows/import.md

@@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
+# Import Workflow
+
+External plan ingestion with conflict detection and agent delegation.
+
+- **--from**: Import external plan → conflict detection → write PLAN.md → validate via sdd-plan-checker
+
+Future: `--prd` mode (PRD extraction into PROJECT.md + REQUIREMENTS.md + ROADMAP.md) is planned for a follow-up PR.
+
+---
+
+<step name="banner">
+
+Display the stage banner:
+
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ SDD ► IMPORT
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="parse_arguments">
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` to determine the execution mode:
+
+- If `--from` is present: extract FILEPATH (the next token after `--from`), set MODE=plan
+- If `--prd` is present: display message that `--prd` is not yet implemented and exit:
+  ```
+  SDD > --prd mode is planned for a future release. Use --from to import plan files.
+  ```
+- If neither flag is found: display usage and exit:
+
+```
+Usage: /sdd-import --from <path>
+
+  --from <path>   Import an external plan file into SDD format
+```
+
+**Validate the file path:**
+
+Verify the path does not contain traversal sequences and the file exists:
+
+```bash
+case "{FILEPATH}" in
+  *..* ) echo "SECURITY_ERROR: path contains traversal sequence"; exit 1 ;;
+esac
+test -f "{FILEPATH}" || echo "FILE_NOT_FOUND"
+```
+
+If FILE_NOT_FOUND: display error and exit:
+
+```
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║  ERROR                                                       ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+
+File not found: {FILEPATH}
+
+**To fix:** Verify the file path and try again.
+```
+
+</step>
+
+---
+
+## Path A: MODE=plan (--from)
+
+<step name="plan_load_context">
+
+Load project context for conflict detection:
+
+1. Read `.planning/ROADMAP.md` — extract phase structure, phase numbers, dependencies
+2. Read `.planning/PROJECT.md` — extract project constraints, tech stack, scope boundaries.
+   **If PROJECT.md does not exist:** skip constraint checks that rely on it and display:
+   ```
+   SDD > Note: No PROJECT.md found. Conflict checks against project constraints will be skipped.
+   ```
+3. Read `.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md` — extract existing requirements for overlap and contradiction checks.
+   **If REQUIREMENTS.md does not exist:** skip requirement conflict checks and continue.
+4. Glob for all CONTEXT.md files across phase directories:
+   ```bash
+   find .planning/phases/ -name "*-CONTEXT.md" -o -name "CONTEXT.md" 2>/dev/null
+   ```
+   Read each CONTEXT.md found — extract locked decisions (any decision in a `<decisions>` block)
+
+Store loaded context for conflict detection in the next step.
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="plan_read_input">
+
+Read the imported file at FILEPATH.
+
+Determine the format:
+- **SDD PLAN.md format**: Has YAML frontmatter with `phase:`, `plan:`, `type:` fields
+- **Freeform document**: Any other format (markdown spec, design doc, task list, etc.)
+
+Extract from the imported content:
+- **Phase target**: Which phase this plan belongs to (from frontmatter or inferred from content)
+- **Plan objectives**: What the plan aims to accomplish
+- **Tasks listed**: Individual work items described in the plan
+- **Files modified**: Any files mentioned as targets
+- **Dependencies**: Any referenced prerequisites
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="plan_conflict_detection">
+
+Run conflict checks against the loaded project context. Output as a plain-text conflict report using [BLOCKER], [WARNING], and [INFO] labels. Do NOT use markdown tables (no `|---|` format).
+
+### BLOCKER checks (any one prevents import):
+
+- Plan targets a phase number that does not exist in ROADMAP.md → [BLOCKER]
+- Plan specifies a tech stack that contradicts PROJECT.md constraints → [BLOCKER]
+- Plan contradicts a locked decision in any CONTEXT.md `<decisions>` block → [BLOCKER]
+- Plan contradicts an existing requirement in REQUIREMENTS.md → [BLOCKER]
+
+### WARNING checks (user confirmation required):
+
+- Plan partially overlaps existing requirement coverage in REQUIREMENTS.md → [WARNING]
+- Plan has `depends_on` referencing plans that are not yet complete → [WARNING]
+- Plan modifies files that overlap with existing incomplete plans → [WARNING]
+- Plan phase number conflicts with existing phase numbering in ROADMAP.md → [WARNING]
+
+### INFO checks (informational, no action needed):
+
+- Plan uses a library not currently in the project tech stack → [INFO]
+- Plan adds a new phase to the ROADMAP.md structure → [INFO]
+
+Display the full Conflict Detection Report:
+
+```
+## Conflict Detection Report
+
+### BLOCKERS ({N})
+
+[BLOCKER] {Short title}
+  Found: {what the imported plan says}
+  Expected: {what project context requires}
+  → {Specific action to resolve}
+
+### WARNINGS ({N})
+
+[WARNING] {Short title}
+  Found: {what was detected}
+  Impact: {what could go wrong}
+  → {Suggested action}
+
+### INFO ({N})
+
+[INFO] {Short title}
+  Note: {relevant information}
+```
+
+**If any [BLOCKER] exists:**
+
+Display:
+```
+SDD > BLOCKED: {N} blockers must be resolved before import can proceed.
+```
+
+Exit WITHOUT writing any files. This is the safety gate — no PLAN.md is written when blockers exist.
+
+**If only WARNINGS and/or INFO (no blockers):**
+
+
+**Text mode (`workflow.text_mode: true` in config or `--text` flag):** Set `TEXT_MODE=true` if `--text` is present in `$ARGUMENTS` OR `text_mode` from init JSON is `true`. When TEXT_MODE is active, replace every `AskUserQuestion` call with a plain-text numbered list and ask the user to type their choice number. This is required for non-Claude runtimes (OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, etc.) where `AskUserQuestion` is not available.
+Ask via AskUserQuestion using the approve-revise-abort pattern:
+- question: "Review the warnings above. Proceed with import?"
+- header: "Approve?"
+- options: Approve | Abort
+
+If user selects "Abort": exit cleanly with message "Import cancelled."
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="plan_convert">
+
+Convert the imported content to SDD PLAN.md format.
+
+Ensure the PLAN.md has all required frontmatter fields:
+```yaml
+---
+phase: "{NN}-{slug}"
+plan: "{NN}-{MM}"
+type: "feature|refactor|config|test|docs"
+wave: 1
+depends_on: []
+files_modified: []
+autonomous: true
+must_haves:
+  truths: []
+  artifacts: []
+---
+```
+
+**Reject PBR naming conventions in source content:**
+If the imported plan references PBR plan naming (e.g., `PLAN-01.md`, `plan-01.md`), rename all references to SDD `{NN}-{MM}-PLAN.md` convention during conversion.
+
+Apply SDD naming convention for the output filename:
+- Format: `{NN}-{MM}-PLAN.md` (e.g., `04-01-PLAN.md`)
+- NEVER use `PLAN-01.md`, `plan-01.md`, or any other format
+- NN = phase number (zero-padded), MM = plan number within the phase (zero-padded)
+
+Determine the target directory:
+```
+.planning/phases/{NN}-{slug}/
+```
+
+If the directory does not exist, create it:
+```bash
+mkdir -p ".planning/phases/{NN}-{slug}/"
+```
+
+Write the PLAN.md file to the target directory.
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="plan_validate">
+
+Delegate validation to sdd-plan-checker:
+
+```
+Task({
+  subagent_type: "sdd-plan-checker",
+  prompt: "Validate: .planning/phases/{phase}/{plan}-PLAN.md — check frontmatter completeness, task structure, and SDD conventions. Report any issues."
+})
+```
+
+If the checker returns errors:
+- Display the errors to the user
+- Ask the user to resolve issues before the plan is considered imported
+- Do not delete the written file — the user can fix and re-validate manually
+
+If the checker returns clean:
+- Display: "Plan validation passed"
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="plan_finalize">
+
+Update `.planning/ROADMAP.md` to reflect the new plan:
+- Add the plan to the Plans list under the correct phase section
+- Include the plan name and description
+
+Update `.planning/STATE.md` if appropriate (e.g., increment total plan count).
+
+Commit the imported plan and updated files:
+```bash
+node "$HOME/.claude/sdd/bin/sdd-tools.cjs" commit "docs({phase}): import plan from {basename FILEPATH}" --files .planning/phases/{phase}/{plan}-PLAN.md .planning/ROADMAP.md
+```
+
+Display completion:
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ SDD ► IMPORT COMPLETE
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+```
+
+Show: plan filename written, phase directory, validation result, next steps.
+
+</step>
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+Do NOT:
+- Use markdown tables (`|---|`) in the conflict detection report — use plain-text [BLOCKER]/[WARNING]/[INFO] labels
+- Write PLAN.md files as `PLAN-01.md` or `plan-01.md` — always use `{NN}-{MM}-PLAN.md`
+- Use `pbr:plan-checker` or `pbr:planner` — use `sdd-plan-checker` and `sdd-planner`
+- Write `.planning/.active-skill` — this is a PBR pattern with no SDD equivalent
+- Reference `pbr-tools`, `pbr:`, or `PLAN-BUILD-RUN` anywhere
+- Write any PLAN.md file when blockers exist — the safety gate must hold
+- Skip path validation on the --from file argument

package/sdd/workflows/inbox.md

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+<purpose>
+Triage and review all open GitHub issues and PRs against project contribution templates.
+Produces a structured report showing compliance status for each item, flags missing
+required fields, identifies label gaps, and optionally takes action (label, comment, close).
+</purpose>
+
+<required_reading>
+Before starting, read these project files to understand the review criteria:
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml` — required fields for feature issues
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml` — required fields for enhancement issues
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.yml` — required fields for chore issues
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml` — required fields for bug reports
+- `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md` — required checklist for feature PRs
+- `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/enhancement.md` — required checklist for enhancement PRs
+- `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md` — required checklist for fix PRs
+- `CONTRIBUTING.md` — the issue-first rule and approval gates
+</required_reading>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="preflight">
+Verify prerequisites:
+
+1. **`gh` CLI available and authenticated?**
+   ```bash
+   which gh && gh auth status 2>&1
+   ```
+   If not available: print setup instructions and exit.
+
+2. **Detect repository:**
+   If `--repo` flag provided, use that. Otherwise:
+   ```bash
+   gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q '.nameWithOwner' 2>/dev/null
+   ```
+   If no repo detected: error — must be in a git repo with a GitHub remote.
+
+3. **Parse flags:**
+   - `--issues` → set REVIEW_ISSUES=true, REVIEW_PRS=false
+   - `--prs` → set REVIEW_ISSUES=false, REVIEW_PRS=true
+   - `--label` → set AUTO_LABEL=true
+   - `--close-incomplete` → set AUTO_CLOSE=true
+   - Default (no flags): review both issues and PRs, report only (no auto-actions)
+</step>
+
+<step name="fetch_issues">
+Skip if REVIEW_ISSUES=false.
+
+Fetch all open issues:
+```bash
+gh issue list --state open --json number,title,labels,body,author,createdAt,updatedAt --limit 100
+```
+
+For each issue, classify by labels and body content:
+
+| Label/Pattern | Type | Template |
+|---|---|---|
+| `feature-request` | Feature | feature_request.yml |
+| `enhancement` | Enhancement | enhancement.yml |
+| `bug` | Bug | bug_report.yml |
+| `type: chore` | Chore | chore.yml |
+| No matching label | Unknown | Flag for manual triage |
+
+If an issue has no type label, attempt to classify from the body content:
+- Contains "### Feature name" → likely Feature
+- Contains "### What existing feature" → likely Enhancement
+- Contains "### What happened?" → likely Bug
+- Contains "### What is the maintenance task?" → likely Chore
+- Cannot determine → mark as `needs-triage`
+</step>
+
+<step name="review_issues">
+Skip if REVIEW_ISSUES=false.
+
+For each classified issue, review against its template requirements.
+
+**Feature Request Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] Pre-submission checklist present (4 checkboxes)
+- [ ] Feature name provided
+- [ ] Type of addition selected
+- [ ] Problem statement filled (not placeholder text)
+- [ ] What is being added described with examples
+- [ ] Full scope of changes listed (files created/modified/systems)
+- [ ] User stories present (minimum 2)
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria present (testable conditions)
+- [ ] Applicable runtimes selected
+- [ ] Breaking changes assessment present
+- [ ] Maintenance burden described
+- [ ] Alternatives considered (not empty)
+- **Label check:** Has `needs-review` label? Has `approved-feature` label?
+- **Gate check:** If PR exists linking this issue, does issue have `approved-feature`?
+
+**Enhancement Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] Pre-submission checklist present (4 checkboxes)
+- [ ] What is being improved identified
+- [ ] Current behavior described with examples
+- [ ] Proposed behavior described with examples
+- [ ] Reason and benefit articulated (not vague)
+- [ ] Scope of changes listed
+- [ ] Breaking changes assessed
+- [ ] Alternatives considered
+- [ ] Area affected selected
+- **Label check:** Has `needs-review` label? Has `approved-enhancement` label?
+- **Gate check:** If PR exists linking this issue, does issue have `approved-enhancement`?
+
+**Bug Report Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] SDD Version provided
+- [ ] Runtime selected
+- [ ] OS selected
+- [ ] Node.js version provided
+- [ ] Description of what happened
+- [ ] Expected behavior described
+- [ ] Steps to reproduce provided
+- [ ] Frequency selected
+- [ ] Severity/impact selected
+- [ ] PII checklist confirmed
+- **Label check:** Has `needs-triage` or `confirmed-bug` label?
+
+**Chore Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] Pre-submission checklist confirmed (no user-facing changes)
+- [ ] Maintenance task described
+- [ ] Type of maintenance selected
+- [ ] Current state described with specifics
+- [ ] Proposed work listed
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria present
+- [ ] Area affected selected
+- **Label check:** Has `needs-triage` label?
+
+**Scoring:** For each issue, calculate a completeness percentage:
+- Count required fields present vs. total required fields
+- Score = (present / total) * 100
+- Status: COMPLETE (100%), MOSTLY COMPLETE (75-99%), INCOMPLETE (50-74%), REJECT (<50%)
+</step>
+
+<step name="fetch_prs">
+Skip if REVIEW_PRS=false.
+
+Fetch all open PRs:
+```bash
+gh pr list --state open --json number,title,labels,body,author,headRefName,baseRefName,isDraft,createdAt,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup --limit 100
+```
+
+For each PR, classify by body content and linked issue:
+
+| Body Pattern | Type | Template |
+|---|---|---|
+| Contains "## Feature PR" or "## Feature summary" | Feature PR | feature.md |
+| Contains "## Enhancement PR" or "## What this enhancement improves" | Enhancement PR | enhancement.md |
+| Contains "## Fix PR" or "## What was broken" | Fix PR | fix.md |
+| Uses default template | Wrong Template | Flag — must use typed template |
+| Cannot determine | Unknown | Flag for manual review |
+
+Also check for linked issues:
+```bash
+gh pr view {number} --json body -q '.body' | grep -oE '(Closes|Fixes|Resolves) #[0-9]+'
+```
+</step>
+
+<step name="review_prs">
+Skip if REVIEW_PRS=false.
+
+For each classified PR, review against its template requirements.
+
+**Feature PR Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] Uses feature PR template (not default)
+- [ ] Issue linked with `Closes #NNN`
+- [ ] Linked issue exists and has `approved-feature` label
+- [ ] Feature summary present
+- [ ] New files table filled
+- [ ] Modified files table filled
+- [ ] Implementation notes present
+- [ ] Spec compliance checklist present (acceptance criteria from issue)
+- [ ] Test coverage described
+- [ ] Platforms tested checked (macOS, Windows, Linux)
+- [ ] Runtimes tested checked
+- [ ] Scope confirmation checked
+- [ ] Full checklist completed
+- [ ] Breaking changes section filled
+- **CI check:** All status checks passing?
+- **Review check:** Has review approval?
+
+**Enhancement PR Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] Uses enhancement PR template (not default)
+- [ ] Issue linked with `Closes #NNN`
+- [ ] Linked issue exists and has `approved-enhancement` label
+- [ ] What is improved described
+- [ ] Before/after provided
+- [ ] Implementation approach described
+- [ ] Verification method described
+- [ ] Platforms tested checked
+- [ ] Runtimes tested checked
+- [ ] Scope confirmation checked
+- [ ] Full checklist completed
+- [ ] Breaking changes section filled
+- **CI check:** All status checks passing?
+
+**Fix PR Review Checklist:**
+- [ ] Uses fix PR template (not default)
+- [ ] Issue linked with `Fixes #NNN`
+- [ ] Linked issue exists and has `confirmed-bug` label
+- [ ] What was broken described
+- [ ] What the fix does described
+- [ ] Root cause explained
+- [ ] Verification method described
+- [ ] Regression test added (or explained why not)
+- [ ] Platforms tested checked
+- [ ] Runtimes tested checked
+- [ ] Full checklist completed
+- [ ] Breaking changes section filled
+- **CI check:** All status checks passing?
+
+**Cross-cutting PR Checks (all types):**
+- [ ] PR title is descriptive (not just "fix" or "update")
+- [ ] One concern per PR (not mixing fix + enhancement)
+- [ ] No unrelated formatting changes visible in diff
+- [ ] CHANGELOG.md updated
+- [ ] Not using `--no-verify` or skipping hooks
+
+**Scoring:** Same as issues — completeness percentage per PR.
+</step>
+
+<step name="check_gates">
+Cross-reference issues and PRs to enforce the issue-first rule:
+
+For each open PR:
+1. Extract linked issue number from body
+2. If no linked issue: **GATE VIOLATION** — PR has no issue
+3. If linked issue exists, check its labels:
+   - Feature PR → issue must have `approved-feature`
+   - Enhancement PR → issue must have `approved-enhancement`
+   - Fix PR → issue must have `confirmed-bug`
+4. If label is missing: **GATE VIOLATION** — PR opened before approval
+
+Report gate violations prominently — these are the most important findings because
+the project auto-closes PRs without proper approval gates.
+</step>
+
+<step name="generate_report">
+Produce a structured triage report:
+
+```
+===================================================================
+  SDD INBOX TRIAGE — {repo} — {date}
+===================================================================
+
+SUMMARY
+-------
+Open issues: {count}    Open PRs: {count}
+  Features:    {n}        Feature PRs:      {n}
+  Enhancements:{n}        Enhancement PRs:  {n}
+  Bugs:        {n}        Fix PRs:          {n}
+  Chores:      {n}        Wrong template:   {n}
+  Unclassified:{n}        No linked issue:  {n}
+
+GATE VIOLATIONS (action required)
+---------------------------------
+{For each violation:}
+  PR #{number}: {title}
+    Problem: {description — e.g., "No approved-feature label on linked issue #45"}
+    Action:  {what to do — e.g., "Close PR or approve issue #45 first"}
+
+ISSUES NEEDING ATTENTION
+------------------------
+{For each issue sorted by completeness score, lowest first:}
+  #{number} [{type}] {title}
+    Score: {percentage}% complete
+    Missing: {list of missing required fields}
+    Labels: {current labels} → Suggested: {recommended labels}
+    Age: {days since created}
+
+PRS NEEDING ATTENTION
+---------------------
+{For each PR sorted by completeness score, lowest first:}
+  #{number} [{type}] {title}
+    Score: {percentage}% complete
+    Missing: {list of missing checklist items}
+    CI: {passing/failing/pending}
+    Review: {approved/changes_requested/none}
+    Linked issue: #{issue_number} ({issue_status})
+    Age: {days since created}
+
+READY TO MERGE
+--------------
+{PRs that are 100% complete, CI passing, approved:}
+  #{number} {title} — ready
+
+STALE ITEMS (>30 days, no activity)
+------------------------------------
+{Issues and PRs with no updates in 30+ days}
+
+===================================================================
+```
+
+Write this report to `.planning/INBOX-TRIAGE.md` if a `.planning/` directory exists,
+otherwise print to console only.
+</step>
+
+<step name="auto_actions">
+Only execute if `--label` or `--close-incomplete` flags were set.
+
+**If --label:**
+For each issue/PR where labels are missing or incorrect:
+```bash
+gh issue edit {number} --add-label "{label}"
+```
+Or:
+```bash
+gh pr edit {number} --add-label "{label}"
+```
+
+Label recommendations:
+- Unclassified issues → add `needs-triage`
+- Feature issues without review → add `needs-review`
+- Enhancement issues without review → add `needs-review`
+- Bug reports without triage → add `needs-triage`
+- PRs with gate violations → add `gate-violation`
+
+**If --close-incomplete:**
+For issues scoring below 50% completeness:
+```bash
+gh issue close {number} --comment "Closed by SDD inbox triage: this issue is missing required fields per the issue template. Missing: {list}. Please reopen with a complete submission. See CONTRIBUTING.md for requirements."
+```
+
+For PRs with gate violations:
+```bash
+gh pr close {number} --comment "Closed by SDD inbox triage: this PR does not meet the issue-first requirement. {specific violation}. See CONTRIBUTING.md for the correct process."
+```
+
+Always confirm with the user before closing anything:
+
+**Text mode (`workflow.text_mode: true` in config or `--text` flag):** Set `TEXT_MODE=true` if `--text` is present in `$ARGUMENTS` OR `text_mode` from init JSON is `true`. When TEXT_MODE is active, replace every `AskUserQuestion` call with a plain-text numbered list and ask the user to type their choice number. This is required for non-Claude runtimes (OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, etc.) where `AskUserQuestion` is not available.
+
+```
+AskUserQuestion:
+  question: "Found {N} items to close. Review the list above — proceed with closing?"
+  options:
+    - label: "Close all"
+      description: "Close all {N} non-compliant items with explanation comments"
+    - label: "Let me pick"
+      description: "I'll choose which ones to close"
+    - label: "Skip"
+      description: "Don't close anything — report only"
+```
+</step>
+
+<step name="report">
+```
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+## Inbox Triage Complete
+
+Reviewed: {issue_count} issues, {pr_count} PRs
+Gate violations: {violation_count}
+Ready to merge: {ready_count}
+Needing attention: {attention_count}
+Stale (30+ days): {stale_count}
+{If report saved: "Report saved to .planning/INBOX-TRIAGE.md"}
+
+Next steps:
+- Review gate violations first — these block the contribution pipeline
+- Address incomplete submissions (comment or close)
+- Merge ready PRs
+- Triage unclassified issues
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+```
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<offer_next>
+After triage:
+
+- /sdd-review — Run cross-AI peer review on a specific phase plan
+- /sdd-ship — Create a PR from completed work
+- /sdd-progress — See overall project state
+- /sdd-inbox --label — Re-run with auto-labeling enabled
+</offer_next>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] All open issues fetched and classified by type
+- [ ] Each issue reviewed against its template requirements
+- [ ] All open PRs fetched and classified by type
+- [ ] Each PR reviewed against its template checklist
+- [ ] Issue-first gate violations identified
+- [ ] Structured report generated with scores and action items
+- [ ] Auto-actions executed only when flagged and user-confirmed
+</success_criteria>