@edupia-tutor/spec-driven-docs 0.14.0

package/skills/prd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,562 @@
+---
+description: Generates a PRD from a product definition, or analyzes an existing PRD through 4 review lenses (QA, DEV, SA, PO) to find gaps and risks. Trigger when: "/generate-prd", "/refine-prd", "tạo PRD", "generate PRD", "phân tích PRD", "review PRD", "refine PRD", "PRD có vấn đề gì không", "check PRD quality".
+---
+
+# PRD Skills — Generate & Refine
+
+This skill handles two commands: `/generate-prd` to create a PRD, and `/refine-prd` to analyze it for gaps.
+
+---
+
+## /generate-prd — Generate Product Requirements Document
+
+### Gate
+
+<!-- Directory: specs/product-definition/**/*.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.
+
+
+### Generate
+
+Write `specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/prd.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# PRD — {Feature Name}
+
+**Version**: 1.0
+**Status**: draft
+**Domain**: {domain}
+**Ticket**: {TICKET_PREFIX}-{N} (if available)
+**Date**: {date}
+
+## 1. Problem Statement
+{from product-definition}
+
+## 2. Goals & Non-Goals
+
+### Goals
+- {goal 1}
+
+### Non-Goals
+- {non-goal 1}
+
+## 3. User Stories
+
+As a {persona}, I want to {action} so that {benefit}.
+
+## 4. Use Cases
+
+| UC-ID | Name | Priority | Description |
+|-------|------|----------|-------------|
+| {DOMAIN}-UC1 | {name} | High | {description} |
+
+## 5. Business Rules
+
+| BR-ID | Rule | UC |
+|-------|------|----|
+| BR-1 | {rule} | UC1 |
+
+## 6. Acceptance Criteria
+
+### {DOMAIN}-UC1: {Name}
+- AC1: Given {context}, when {action}, then {result}
+
+## 7. Out of Scope
+{from product-definition}
+
+## 8. Cross-Service Dependencies
+{from product-definition}
+
+## 9. Open Questions
+- [ ] {question requiring clarification}
+```
+
+### Output
+
+```
+✅ PRD created: specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/prd.md
+Status: draft
+```
+
+# 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.)*
+
+
+---
+
+## /refine-prd — Analyze PRD Through 4 Review Lenses
+
+Performs a structured multi-perspective analysis of a PRD and writes findings to a YAML file for human review.
+
+### 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.
+
+
+### Analyze — 4 Lenses (run all four perspectives)
+
+#### QA Lens — Test Coverage & Edge Cases
+Evaluate:
+- Are all acceptance criteria testable and measurable?
+- Are edge cases and error scenarios specified?
+- Are boundary conditions defined?
+- Is there ambiguity in expected behavior?
+
+#### DEV Lens — Technical Clarity & Feasibility
+Evaluate:
+- Are API inputs/outputs clearly defined?
+- Are business rules unambiguous enough to implement?
+- Are there performance or scalability concerns?
+- Are cross-service dependencies fully described?
+- Is there anything technically infeasible or risky?
+
+#### SA Lens — Architecture & Design
+Evaluate:
+- Does this fit the existing architecture?
+- Are there design patterns or constraints to apply?
+- Is data modeling clear (entities, relationships)?
+- Are there security or auth implications?
+
+#### PO Lens — Business Value & Scope
+Evaluate:
+- Is scope clearly bounded?
+- Are priorities clear?
+- Are success metrics defined?
+- Are stakeholder needs fully captured?
+- Any scope creep risk?
+
+### Write Output
+
+Derive the output filename from the PRD slug:
+- PRD file: `specs/payment/create-invoice/prd.md` → output: `.agent/review/create-invoice-findings.yaml`
+- Rule: take the PRD's parent folder name (the `prd-slug`), append `-findings.yaml`
+
+Write findings to `.agent/review/{prd-slug}-findings.yaml`:
+
+```yaml
+# Generated by /refine-prd
+# Review each finding and mark: accepted / rejected / needs_discussion
+prd_source: "specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/prd.md"
+generated_at: "{ISO datetime}"
+status: "pending_review"
+
+findings:
+  - id: "F001"
+    lens: "QA"           # QA | DEV | SA | PO
+    severity: "major"    # critical | major | minor
+    section: "§6. Acceptance Criteria"
+    finding: "{Clear description of the gap or issue}"
+    suggestion: "{Specific actionable improvement}"
+    status: "pending"    # pending | accepted | rejected | needs_discussion
+
+  - id: "F002"
+    lens: "DEV"
+    severity: "minor"
+    section: "§8. Cross-Service Dependencies"
+    finding: "{finding}"
+    suggestion: "{suggestion}"
+    status: "pending"
+
+summary:
+  total_findings: {N}
+  by_severity:
+    critical: {N}
+    major: {N}
+    minor: {N}
+  by_lens:
+    QA: {N}
+    DEV: {N}
+    SA: {N}
+    PO: {N}
+  recommendation: "APPROVED_WITH_MINOR_CHANGES | NEEDS_REVISION | BLOCKED"
+```
+
+### Report to User
+
+```
+/refine-prd Complete — {PRD name}
+
+Findings: {total} total
+  🔴 Critical: {N}  🟡 Major: {N}  🟢 Minor: {N}
+
+Top issues:
+  [F001] QA/major — {brief description}
+  [F002] DEV/minor — {brief description}
+
+Review file: .agent/review/{prd-slug}-findings.yaml
+→ Open with Review Board extension (right-click file) to accept/reject each finding
+→ After review: update PRD and run /generate-bdd
+```
+
+# 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.)*
+