@edupia-tutor/spec-driven-docs 0.14.0

package/core/skills/spec/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,461 @@
+---
+description: Generates BDD .feature files from an approved PRD, or generates technical design documents. Trigger when: "/generate-bdd", "/generate-tech-docs", "tạo BDD", "tạo spec", "generate feature file", "write BDD scenarios", "tạo technical design", "tech design", "sinh tech docs", "API design", "sinh .feature".
+---
+
+# Spec Skills — BDD & Technical Design
+
+This skill handles two commands: `/generate-bdd` to create BDD feature files, and `/generate-tech-docs` to create technical design documents.
+
+---
+
+## /generate-bdd — Generate BDD Feature Files
+
+### Gate
+
+<!-- Directory: specs/*/*/prd.md -->
+# Gate — Universal Entry Procedure
+
+Every command must execute this gate before proceeding with its specific logic.
+
+## Step 0 — Sub-Agent Mode Check
+
+Before anything else, check if `$ARGUMENTS` is a JSON payload from an orchestrator:
+
+1. Attempt to parse `$ARGUMENTS` as JSON.
+2. If it parses successfully **and** contains `"_agent_mode": true`:
+   - **Skip Steps 1, 2, and 3 of this Gate entirely.**
+   - Set target file = `payload.target_file`
+   - Set loaded context = `payload.context` (do NOT run context-loader.md)
+   - Set UC scope = `payload.uc_id` (process only this UC)
+   - Set line range = `payload.uc_section` (read only that PRD section)
+   - Proceed directly to the command-specific logic.
+3. If `$ARGUMENTS` is not JSON or `_agent_mode` is absent → continue to Step 1 (normal mode).
+
+## Step 0-B — Model Check
+
+*Skip this step if `_agent_mode: true` (sub-agent — orchestrator already validated).*
+
+Complex generation and review commands require strong reasoning.
+Using a smaller model risks missed edge cases, incomplete spec analysis, and architecture violations.
+
+Display and wait for response:
+
+```
+⚙️  MODEL CHECK
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+  Recommended  : claude-opus-4 (or latest Opus model)
+  Why needed   : Spec analysis, architecture review, code generation
+                 require deep reasoning. Smaller models miss edge cases.
+
+  To switch in Claude Code:
+    • Settings → Model → select "claude-opus"
+    • or: /model → choose claude-opus
+
+  Running on claude-opus?
+    Y — yes, on claude-opus → proceed
+    S — skip check (I accept lower quality risk with current model)
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+- "Y" → proceed to Step 1.
+- "S" → proceed to Step 1 (user accepts risk, add ⚠️ to final report).
+- "N" or anything else → **STOP.** Output: "Please switch to claude-opus, then re-run this command."
+
+## Step 1 — Resolve Target File
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided and points to an existing file → use it directly as the target.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` is a **bare UC-ID / ticket ID / partial name** (no path) → resolve it to a file by globbing the feature-package layout. The `{prd-slug}` is **not known yet**, so use a `*` wildcard for that segment, and a recursive `**` under `bdd/` so the platform subfolders (`bdd/web/`, `bdd/app/`, `bdd/system/`) are all covered:
+   - **BDD commands** (target is a `.feature`): `{specs_dir}/{domain}/*/bdd/**/{UC-ID}*.feature` — or `{specs_dir}/*/*/bdd/**/{UC-ID}*.feature` if the domain is also unknown. If a platform/scope is implied by the command (e.g. a system tech-doc needs the `system/` BDD), prefer the match under that platform subfolder.
+   - **PRD commands** (target is `prd.md`): `{specs_dir}/{domain}/*/prd.md` (match the feature folder whose id corresponds), else `{specs_dir}/*/*/prd.md`.
+   - **tech-docs commands**: `{specs_dir}/{domain}/*/tech-docs/{UC-ID}*-tech-design*.md`.
+   - **design-spec commands**: `{specs_dir}/{domain}/*/design-spec/{TICKET-ID}*.md`.
+
+   Once a file matches: set it as the target **and** record `domain` + `prd_slug` from its path (per the extraction rule in `context-loader.md` Step 1 — `prd_slug` = first segment after `{specs_dir}/{domain}/`). Every path the command later reads or writes (sibling BDD/tech-docs/design-spec/trace) uses **that resolved `prd_slug`**, so all artifacts stay in one feature package. If several files match (e.g. multiple platforms), pick per the command's platform/scope or list them and ask.
+3. If `$ARGUMENTS` is empty or no match found:
+   - List files in the relevant directory for this command (e.g., `specs/*/*/prd.md` for PRD commands, `specs/*/*/bdd/**/*.feature` for BDD commands).
+   - Present the list to the user and ask: "Which file do you want to work with? (Enter number or filename)"
+   - Wait for user selection before continuing.
+
+## Step 2 — Execute Context Loader
+
+Load all project context by following the procedure in `steps/context-loader.md`.
+Store all loaded context in memory for use throughout this command session.
+
+## Step 3 — CHECKPOINT
+
+After completing Steps 1 and 2, display a summary and wait for confirmation:
+
+```
+CHECKPOINT
+-----------
+Target     : {resolved file path}
+Project    : {project.name from project-context.yaml}
+Tech stack : {language} / {framework}
+Module     : {module if set, else "not configured"}
+Domains    : {comma-separated domain list}
+
+Proceed? (Y/N)
+```
+
+Wait for explicit "Y" or "N" from the user before continuing.
+- "Y" → proceed to the command-specific steps below.
+- "N" → stop and ask what the user wants to change.
+
+
+Also verify: Check that the PRD `Status` is `approved` (not `draft`).
+- If `draft`: warn "PRD is still draft. Proceed anyway? Findings from /refine-prd may not be addressed yet."
+
+### UC Decomposition
+
+For each Use Case in the PRD, derive scenarios. Present outline:
+
+```
+{DOMAIN}-UC1: {Name}
+  SC1: Happy path — {client/role type} — {success scenario}
+  SC2: Happy path — {other client/role type} (if applicable)
+  SC3: Validation error — {invalid input}
+  SC4: Not found / resource missing
+  BRs covered: BR-1, BR-2
+
+{DOMAIN}-UC2: {Name}
+  ...
+```
+
+**CHECKPOINT** — Ask: "Does this outline look correct? Any missing scenarios?"
+Wait for confirmation before generating files.
+
+### Generate
+
+For each UC, write `specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/bdd/{UC-ID}-{slug}.feature`:
+
+```gherkin
+# @trace.source=specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/prd.md
+# @trace.uc={UC-ID}
+Feature: {UC Name}
+
+  Background:
+    Given the system is running
+    And a {persona} is authenticated
+
+  Scenario: SC1 — {Happy path description}
+    Given {precondition}
+    When {action}
+    Then {expected outcome}
+    And {secondary outcome if any}
+
+  Scenario: SC2 — {Another happy path}
+    Given {precondition}
+    When {action}
+    Then {expected outcome}
+
+  Scenario: SC3 — Validation error
+    Given {precondition}
+    When {invalid action}
+    Then the system returns a validation error
+    And the error message mentions "{field}"
+
+  Scenario: SC4 — Resource not found
+    Given no {resource} exists with id {id}
+    When {action}
+    Then the system returns a not-found error
+```
+
+### Quality Check
+
+After generating, self-evaluate:
+- [ ] Every acceptance criteria from PRD has at least one scenario
+- [ ] Every business rule is covered by at least one scenario
+- [ ] Error scenarios are present (validation, not-found, unauthorized)
+- [ ] Scenarios are atomic (one behavior per scenario)
+- [ ] No implementation details in feature files (no SQL, no class names)
+
+### Output
+
+```
+/generate-bdd Complete — {domain}
+
+Files created:
+  ✅ specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/bdd/{UC-ID}-{slug}.feature ({N} scenarios)
+  ...
+
+Quality: {score}%
+```
+
+# Report Footer — Standard Command Output Format
+
+Every command report must end with this standard footer section.
+
+## Status Badge
+
+Choose one based on outcome:
+- `✅ Complete` — all steps succeeded, no issues found
+- `❌ Failed` — command could not complete due to a blocking error
+- `⚠️ Warnings` — completed with non-blocking issues that should be reviewed
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+List every file created or modified by this command:
+```
+Output Artifacts:
+  {created|updated} {file-path} ({brief description})
+  {created|updated} {file-path} ({brief description})
+```
+
+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:
+
+| Current command         | Suggest next                                  |
+|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
+| /setup-ai-first         | `/define-product` to start your first feature |
+| /define-product         | `/generate-prd {product-definition-file}`     |
+| /generate-prd           | `/refine-prd {prd-file}` then `/review-context {prd-file}` |
+| /refine-prd             | Open Review Board → update PRD → `/review-context {prd-file}` |
+| /review-context (PRD)   | FE/App: `/generate-design-spec {prd-file}` (then BDD after sign-off); BE: `/generate-bdd {prd-file}` directly; fix PRD if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /generate-design-spec   | Designer review → Figma links confirmed → PO + Designer sign-off → `/generate-bdd {prd-file}` |
+| /generate-bdd           | `/review-context {feature-file}` to verify coverage |
+| /review-context (BDD)   | `/generate-tech-docs {UC-ID}` if APPROVED; regenerate if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /qc-analyze             | `/qc-plan {UC-ID}` (resolve 🔴 blocker gaps first) |
+| /qc-plan                | `/qc-design-test {UC-ID}`                     |
+| /qc-design-test         | `/qc-review {UC-ID}` (test-case review)       |
+| /qc-review (test-case)  | `/qc-run-test {UC-ID}` if APPROVED; fix TCs if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /qc-run-test            | `/qc-report {UC-ID}` then `/qc-review {UC-ID}` (script review) |
+| /qc-review (script)     | `/qc-report {UC-ID}` then create PR if APPROVED |
+| /qc-report              | `/validate-traces {UC-ID}` to refresh Living Docs (qc_status) |
+| /generate-tech-docs     | `/review-tech-docs {tech-design-file}`        |
+| /review-tech-docs       | `/generate-code {feature-file}` if APPROVED; fix doc if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /generate-code          | First gen → `/review-code {UC-ID}`; re-gen → `/dev-gen-test {UC-ID}` |
+| /dev-gen-test         | `/dev-run-test {UC-ID}`                          |
+| /dev-run-test (passing)    | `/review-code {UC-ID}`                        |
+| /dev-run-test (failing)    | `/fix-bug {ticket-id}` or `/debug {error}`    |
+| /review-code            | `/dev-smoke-test {UC-ID}` or create PR            |
+| /dev-smoke-test             | Create PR and link to ticket                  |
+| /validate-traces        | DRIFT/UNTRACKED → `/generate-code {UC-ID}`; GAP → `/dev-gen-test {UC-ID}`; all OK → create PR |
+| /fix-bug                | Create PR and link to ticket                  |
+| /debug                  | `/fix-bug {ticket-id}` if fix needed          |
+| /report-bug             | Send to dev (`/fix-bug {BUG-ID}`); if coverage gap → `/propose-scenario {UC-ID}` |
+| /propose-scenario       | Notify PO/Dev to review the proposal in `feedback/bdd-proposals/` |
+| /learn                  | Continue working — lesson applies on next command |
+| /sync                   | `/validate-traces` for full coverage; act on any `📥 tester feedback` surfaced |
+| /update-framework       | Review `git diff .agent/`, commit; `/sync` for project content |
+
+Format the footer as:
+```
+---
+Status   : {badge}
+{Output Artifacts block}
+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.)*
+
+
+---
+
+## /generate-tech-docs — Generate Technical Design Document
+
+### Gate
+
+Check BDD quality (read .feature files, verify scenarios are well-formed).
+If quality < 80%, halt and report: "BDD quality insufficient. Fix these issues first: [list]"
+
+### Generate
+
+Write `specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/{UC-ID}-tech-design.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Technical Design — {UC-ID}: {Feature}
+
+**Domain**: {domain}
+**Date**: {date}
+**Spec**: specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/bdd/{UC-ID}.feature
+
+## §1. Overview
+{Brief description of what this UC implements}
+
+## §2. API Endpoints
+
+| Method | Path | Auth/Role | Request Body | Response |
+|--------|------|-----------|--------------|----------|
+| GET    | /v1/{resource} | {role} | — | {ResponseDTO} |
+| POST   | /v1/{resource} | {role} | {RequestDTO} | {ResponseDTO} |
+
+## §3. Data Model
+
+{Entity diagram or table structure}
+
+Key entities:
+- `{Entity}`: {description, key fields}
+
+## §4. Service Flow
+
+Sequence for each UC:
+```
+{Client} → Controller → {Facade} → {Service} → {Repository}
+                              ↓
+                    {OtherService} (if cross-service)
+```
+
+## §5. Business Rules Implementation
+
+| BR-ID | Rule | Implementation approach |
+|-------|------|------------------------|
+| BR-1 | {rule} | {how to implement} |
+
+## §6. Error Handling
+
+| Scenario | Exception | HTTP Status |
+|----------|-----------|-------------|
+| {resource} not found | {NotFoundException} | 404 |
+| Validation failure | {ValidationException} | 400 |
+| Unauthorized | {AuthException} | 403 |
+
+## §7. Database Changes
+
+{Migration script or schema changes needed}
+
+## §8. Caching Strategy
+
+{Which data to cache, TTL, invalidation triggers — or "N/A"}
+
+## §9. Cross-Service Dependencies
+
+{List external service calls, event producers/consumers}
+```
+
+Instruct: "SA/Lead should review and approve before running /generate-code."
+
+# Report Footer — Standard Command Output Format
+
+Every command report must end with this standard footer section.
+
+## Status Badge
+
+Choose one based on outcome:
+- `✅ Complete` — all steps succeeded, no issues found
+- `❌ Failed` — command could not complete due to a blocking error
+- `⚠️ Warnings` — completed with non-blocking issues that should be reviewed
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+List every file created or modified by this command:
+```
+Output Artifacts:
+  {created|updated} {file-path} ({brief description})
+  {created|updated} {file-path} ({brief description})
+```
+
+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:
+
+| Current command         | Suggest next                                  |
+|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
+| /setup-ai-first         | `/define-product` to start your first feature |
+| /define-product         | `/generate-prd {product-definition-file}`     |
+| /generate-prd           | `/refine-prd {prd-file}` then `/review-context {prd-file}` |
+| /refine-prd             | Open Review Board → update PRD → `/review-context {prd-file}` |
+| /review-context (PRD)   | FE/App: `/generate-design-spec {prd-file}` (then BDD after sign-off); BE: `/generate-bdd {prd-file}` directly; fix PRD if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /generate-design-spec   | Designer review → Figma links confirmed → PO + Designer sign-off → `/generate-bdd {prd-file}` |
+| /generate-bdd           | `/review-context {feature-file}` to verify coverage |
+| /review-context (BDD)   | `/generate-tech-docs {UC-ID}` if APPROVED; regenerate if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /qc-analyze             | `/qc-plan {UC-ID}` (resolve 🔴 blocker gaps first) |
+| /qc-plan                | `/qc-design-test {UC-ID}`                     |
+| /qc-design-test         | `/qc-review {UC-ID}` (test-case review)       |
+| /qc-review (test-case)  | `/qc-run-test {UC-ID}` if APPROVED; fix TCs if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /qc-run-test            | `/qc-report {UC-ID}` then `/qc-review {UC-ID}` (script review) |
+| /qc-review (script)     | `/qc-report {UC-ID}` then create PR if APPROVED |
+| /qc-report              | `/validate-traces {UC-ID}` to refresh Living Docs (qc_status) |
+| /generate-tech-docs     | `/review-tech-docs {tech-design-file}`        |
+| /review-tech-docs       | `/generate-code {feature-file}` if APPROVED; fix doc if NEEDS_FIX |
+| /generate-code          | First gen → `/review-code {UC-ID}`; re-gen → `/dev-gen-test {UC-ID}` |
+| /dev-gen-test         | `/dev-run-test {UC-ID}`                          |
+| /dev-run-test (passing)    | `/review-code {UC-ID}`                        |
+| /dev-run-test (failing)    | `/fix-bug {ticket-id}` or `/debug {error}`    |
+| /review-code            | `/dev-smoke-test {UC-ID}` or create PR            |
+| /dev-smoke-test             | Create PR and link to ticket                  |
+| /validate-traces        | DRIFT/UNTRACKED → `/generate-code {UC-ID}`; GAP → `/dev-gen-test {UC-ID}`; all OK → create PR |
+| /fix-bug                | Create PR and link to ticket                  |
+| /debug                  | `/fix-bug {ticket-id}` if fix needed          |
+| /report-bug             | Send to dev (`/fix-bug {BUG-ID}`); if coverage gap → `/propose-scenario {UC-ID}` |
+| /propose-scenario       | Notify PO/Dev to review the proposal in `feedback/bdd-proposals/` |
+| /learn                  | Continue working — lesson applies on next command |
+| /sync                   | `/validate-traces` for full coverage; act on any `📥 tester feedback` surfaced |
+| /update-framework       | Review `git diff .agent/`, commit; `/sync` for project content |
+
+Format the footer as:
+```
+---
+Status   : {badge}
+{Output Artifacts block}
+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.)*
+