@edupia-tutor/spec-driven-docs 0.14.0

package/core/commands/review-tech-docs.md

@@ -0,0 +1,811 @@
+# /review-tech-docs — Review Technical Design Document
+
+**READ-ONLY analysis mode — writes a findings file, does NOT modify the target.**
+**Use `--resume` to apply accepted findings.**
+
+## Gate
+# 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.
+
+
+*Note: For this command, the target in Step 1 is a tech-design `.md` file in `{paths.tech_docs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/`.
+If `$ARGUMENTS` contains `--resume` → skip to Resume Mode below.*
+
+## Context
+# Context Loader — Load All Project Context
+
+Execute these steps in order. Store everything in memory for the duration of the command session.
+
+**Priority guide (anti-lost-in-middle):**
+- Steps 1–2 are PROJECT-CONFIG — loaded first, resolve all paths and metadata.
+- Step 3 is CRITICAL — architecture + coding standards, the highest-priority facts for generation.
+- Step 4 is SAFETY — data protection rules, enforced silently for the entire session.
+- Steps 5–6 are DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE — terminology and entity definitions.
+- Step 7 is the WORKING MEMORY RECAP — locks critical facts into the top of working memory.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — [PROJECT-CONFIG] Load project-context.yaml
+
+Read `.agent/project-context.yaml`. Extract and store:
+
+**Tech Stack:**
+- `tech_stack.language` → active language (e.g., Java 17, TypeScript, C#, Go)
+- `tech_stack.framework` → active framework (e.g., Spring Boot 3.2, Angular 17, .NET 8)
+- `tech_stack.build_tool` → build tool (e.g., Maven, npm, dotnet, go)
+- `tech_stack.test_framework` → test framework (e.g., JUnit 5 + Mockito, Jest, xUnit)
+- `tech_stack.database` → database (e.g., PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB)
+- `tech_stack.module` → active module profile (e.g., java-spring, angular, dotnet, golang, context-engineering)
+
+**Conventions:**
+- `conventions.build_command` → how to compile/build
+- `conventions.test_command` → how to run tests
+- `conventions.service_run` → how to start the service
+- `conventions.ticket_prefix` → ticket ID prefix (e.g., PROJ, FEAT, UC)
+
+**Domains:**
+- `domains` → list of active business domains
+
+**Paths (if present):**
+- `paths.specs_dir` → spec artifacts root — PRD, BDD, tech-docs, design-spec. Structure: `{specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/{prd.md | bdd/ | tech-docs/ | design-spec/}`
+- `paths.refinement_dir` → findings/review output dir
+- `paths.qc_dir` → QC automation artifacts root (visible top-level, one subfolder per UC: `{qc_dir}/{UC-ID}/`)
+- `paths.qc_skills_dir` → where qc-* commands load QC skills from (default bundled `.agent/skills/qc`; override to the QC team's own repo/submodule so framework upgrade won't overwrite them)
+- `paths.product_definitions_dir` → product definitions root
+- `paths.domain_knowledge_dir` → domain knowledge root
+- `paths.business_dictionary` → path to business-dictionary.md
+- `paths.core_entities` → path to core-entities.md
+- `paths.tech_docs_dir` → technical documentation root (merged with specs_dir in feature-package layout — tech-docs live under `{specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/`)
+- `paths.trace_dir` → trace state directory; structure: `.trace/{domain}/{prd-slug}/{UC-ID}.tsv`
+
+If `paths` section is absent, use these defaults:
+- `specs_dir` = `specs`
+- `refinement_dir` = `.agent/review`
+- `qc_dir` = `docs`
+- `qc_skills_dir` = `.agent/skills/qc`
+- `product_definitions_dir` = `specs/product-definition`
+- `domain_knowledge_dir` = `specs/domain-knowledge`
+- `business_dictionary` = `specs/domain-knowledge/business-dictionary.md`
+- `core_entities` = `specs/domain-knowledge/core-entities.md`
+- `tech_docs_dir` = `specs`
+- `trace_dir` = `.trace`
+
+Note: In the feature-package layout, `specs_dir` is the unified root. All spec artifact types (PRD, BDD, tech-docs, design-spec) live under `{specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/`. The `prd-slug` is the feature-package folder name, not a separate config variable.
+
+**How to extract `prd_slug` (works for ANY target file, regardless of nesting depth):** given a target path of the form `{specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/...`, take the **first path segment after `{specs_dir}/{domain}/`** — i.e. the `{prd-slug}` position. Do NOT use the file's immediate parent folder, because BDD/tech-docs/design-spec artifacts are nested one or two levels deeper inside the package. Examples:
+- `specs/payment/create-invoice/prd.md` → `prd_slug = create-invoice`
+- `specs/payment/create-invoice/bdd/system/PAY-UC1.feature` → `prd_slug = create-invoice` *(NOT `system`)*
+- `specs/payment/create-invoice/bdd/web/PAY-UC1.feature` → `prd_slug = create-invoice` *(NOT `web`)*
+- `specs/payment/create-invoice/tech-docs/PAY-UC1-tech-design.md` → `prd_slug = create-invoice` *(NOT `tech-docs`)*
+- `specs/payment/create-invoice/design-spec/PAY-design-spec-web.md` → `prd_slug = create-invoice`
+
+All sibling artifacts of one feature (PRD, every platform's BDD, the BE + FE tech-docs, the design-spec, and the trace TSV) therefore resolve to the **same `prd_slug`** — so a synthesized **system** BDD or **system/BE** tech-doc lands in the same `{specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/` package as the web/app artifacts it was derived from.
+
+If `tech_stack.module` is set, also load `.agent/modules/{module}/stack-profile.yaml` if it exists.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.5 — [SERVICE ROUTING] Resolve service paths (umbrella mode)
+
+*Skip this step entirely if `setup.mode` is not `"umbrella"` and `services` section is absent from project-context.yaml.*
+
+If `services` section is present:
+
+**1. Detect active domain** (in priority order):
+- Read `@trace.domain` from target file frontmatter (if Gate loaded a target file)
+- Extract from target file path: `domain` = the first segment after the `specs_dir` base path; `prd_slug` = the next segment (the feature-package folder). This holds for any target depth — see the `prd_slug` extraction rule in Step 1.  
+  *(e.g., `specs/user/create-account/prd.md` **and** `specs/user/create-account/bdd/system/UC1.feature` both → domain = `user`, prd_slug = `create-account`)*
+- If `$ARGUMENTS` contains a path, extract the domain segment after `specs_dir`
+
+**2. Route to service** — if active domain matches a key in `services`:
+- 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`
+- If service has its own `module` → use it as `active_module` (overrides `tech_stack.module`)
+
+**3. Fallback** — if domain not detected or no matching service key:
+- Keep default paths from Step 1
+- 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` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** All spec artifacts (PRD, BDD, tech-docs, design-spec) live under the unified spec root in the shared spec repo using the feature-package layout: `{spec_source}/specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/`. Every umbrella (FE/App/BE) reads from here. *(Per-service `specs/` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
+- Override `paths.tech_docs_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs` — **always when `spec_source` is set** (step 2 no longer pins tech-docs per-service in this case). Tech-docs live at `{spec_source}/specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/`. 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.)*
+- Override `paths.domain_knowledge_dir` → `{spec_source}/specs/domain-knowledge`
+- Override `paths.business_dictionary` → `{spec_source}/specs/domain-knowledge/business-dictionary.md`
+- Override `paths.core_entities` → `{spec_source}/specs/domain-knowledge/core-entities.md`
+- Override `paths.bug_reports_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bug-reports`
+- Override `paths.bdd_proposals_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/bdd-proposals`
+- Override `paths.prd_change_requests_dir` → `{spec_source}/feedback/prd-change-requests`
+- Override `paths.trace_dir` → `{spec_source}/.trace` — **always when `spec_source` is set.** Trace TSVs are consolidated in the spec repo (single authoritative location, no per-service split) so the PM/PO has one place to manage status. Internal structure: `.trace/{domain}/{prd-slug}/{UC-ID}.tsv`. Code-side commands (`/generate-code`, `/dev-run-test`, `/qc-run-test`) run from `service_root` but **write their trace row into `{spec_source}/.trace/{domain}/{prd-slug}/`** — like they already push `feedback/` there. *(Per-service `.trace` only when there is no `spec_source`.)*
+
+> **Why under `spec_source`:** PRD, BDD, tech-docs, design-spec, domain knowledge, tester feedback, **and the `.trace/` coverage state** are all **cross-team artifacts** — they live in the **shared spec repo** using the feature-package layout so every umbrella (FE/App/BE) and the PM read one source via `/sync`. In the feature-package layout, a single `specs/{domain}/{prd-slug}/` folder groups all artifact types for one PRD, making the spec repo self-contained and navigable by feature. The service submodule holds only **code** (+ build/test tooling). `.trace/` and `feedback/` are the dev/QC **write areas** in the spec repo. In single-service mode (no `spec_source`), everything defaults under the repo root — still one repo.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.6 — [SERVICE CONVENTIONS] Load service-specific conventions (umbrella mode)
+
+*Skip this step entirely if `active_service` is `"unresolved"` or context is single-service mode.*
+
+When `active_service` has been resolved to a real path in Step 1.5 (e.g., `user-service/`):
+
+**1. Locate service config** — try in priority order:
+- `{active_service}/.agent/project-context.yaml`
+- `{active_service}/project-context.yaml`
+
+**2. If found, override with service-specific values:**
+
+| Variable | Source |
+|----------|--------|
+| `conventions.test_command` | service's `conventions.test_command` |
+| `conventions.build_command` | service's `conventions.build_command` |
+| `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`); ignore any service-level `specs_dir`** (all spec artifacts are 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`
+- **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).
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — [PROJECT-CONFIG] Load module stack profile (conditional)
+
+If `tech_stack.module` is set, read `.agent/modules/{module}/stack-profile.yaml`.
+Merge framework-specific conventions (layer patterns, test patterns, naming rules) into the loaded context.
+If the file does not exist → skip silently.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — [CRITICAL] Load CLAUDE.md (layered: root + service overlay)
+
+*This is the highest-priority context — it defines HOW to write code and documents for this project.*
+
+CLAUDE.md is loaded in **two layers** so umbrella-wide rules and service-specific
+architecture/coding standards compose correctly. The agent always sits at the umbrella
+root, but the implementation code lives in a service submodule with its OWN stack,
+architecture, and conventions — so the service's CLAUDE.md must win for code generation.
+
+**Layer 1 — [BASE] Root CLAUDE.md (umbrella-wide).**
+Read `CLAUDE.md` at the repo root. Treat its contents as the **shared baseline** for the
+whole umbrella — git conventions, data-protection posture, cross-cutting rules, and (in
+single-service mode) the project's only architecture + coding standards.
+
+**Layer 2 — [OVERLAY] Service CLAUDE.md (umbrella mode only).**
+*Run only if `service_root` was set in Step 1.6 (i.e. a real service was routed to).*
+Read `{service_root}/CLAUDE.md`. This file defines the architecture + coding standards of
+the **actual stack being implemented** (e.g. `user-service` = java-spring, `web` = nextjs).
+Overlay it on top of Layer 1: **on any conflict, the service value WINS** for architecture,
+coding standards, and error handling. Layer-1 values that the service does not redefine
+(e.g. git conventions, banned patterns shared org-wide) remain in effect.
+
+From the **merged** result, extract and store:
+
+- **§1 Project Overview** → project name, language, framework, build/test commands, domains
+- **§2 Architecture** → layer order (e.g., Controller → Facade → Service → Repository), architectural rules — *service overlay wins*
+- **§3 Coding Standards** → naming conventions (classes, methods), response wrapper type, forbidden patterns — *service overlay wins*
+- **§5 Error Handling** → exception types, HTTP status code mapping, not-found exception class name — *service overlay wins*
+- **§7 Git Conventions** → branch naming pattern, commit message format — *root baseline unless service redefines*
+
+**Resolution rules:**
+- If both layers exist → merge as above; record `claude_md_source = root + {service_root}`.
+- If only the service overlay exists (no root CLAUDE.md) → use the service file alone; `claude_md_source = {service_root}`.
+- If `service_root` is set but `{service_root}/CLAUDE.md` is **missing** → fall back to root CLAUDE.md and flag ⚠️ in the Step 7 recap (the service has no architecture/coding-standards definition — code generation will use umbrella defaults, which may be the wrong stack).
+- If neither exists → note CLAUDE.md as missing and continue with project-context.yaml data only.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — [SAFETY] Load Data Protection Rules
+
+Read `.agent/rules/data-protection.md` (or `rules/data-protection.md` from the framework installation).
+
+Store the sensitive file patterns — you must **never** read, write, display, or reference content from files matching those patterns for the entire session.
+
+If neither file exists → apply built-in defaults: never access `.env*`, `*.key`, `*.pem`, `*secret*`, `*password*`, `*credential*`.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5 — [DOMAIN] Load Business Dictionary (conditional)
+
+Check if the business dictionary file exists (use `paths.business_dictionary` resolved in Step 1).
+
+If it exists, read it and extract:
+- **Canonical Terms** → complete list of approved terms and their definitions
+- **Banned Terms** → complete list of banned terms and their canonical replacements
+- **Status / Enum Registry** → allowed enum values per entity
+
+Store the banned terms list for **active enforcement** throughout the command session:
+- When generating any text (PRD, BDD, code comments, tech docs), verify no banned terms appear
+- Replace banned terms with their canonical equivalents automatically
+
+If the file does not exist → skip silently. Do not warn or block.
+
+---
+
+## Step 6 — [DOMAIN] Load Core Entities (conditional)
+
+Check if the core entities file exists at `paths.core_entities` (resolved in Step 1).
+Default path: `specs/domain-knowledge/core-entities.md`.
+
+If it exists, read it and store:
+- **Entity catalog** → for each entity: its name, purpose, owner service, key fields (name + type), business invariants, and relationships
+- **Field name registry** → canonical field names to use in generated code and documents
+- **Relationship map** → how entities relate to each other (1:N, N:N, embedded, etc.)
+
+**How to use this catalog:**
+- When generating code: use the field names, types, and relationships defined here — do NOT infer from existing code
+- When generating PRD/BDD: reference entity names from this catalog for consistency
+- When generating tech-docs: use this catalog as the source-of-truth for entity definitions
+
+If the file does not exist → skip silently.
+
+---
+
+## Step 6.5 — [PLATFORM] Derive active_module and platform_type
+
+Using `tech_stack.module` loaded in Step 1, derive and store two variables for use by all downstream commands:
+
+```
+active_module = tech_stack.module   (e.g. "java-spring", "react", "flutter")
+```
+
+| `platform_type` | Modules |
+|---|---|
+| `backend` | `java-spring`, `golang`, `dotnet`, `php-laravel`, `context-engineering` |
+| `web-frontend` | `react`, `nextjs`, `vue`, `nuxt`, `angular` |
+| `mobile` | `flutter`, `react-native`, `ios-swiftui`, `android-compose` |
+
+If `tech_stack.module` is blank or not recognized → set `platform_type = "unknown"` and flag as ⚠️ in the Step 7 recap.
+
+These two variables (`active_module`, `platform_type`) are the canonical source for all branching logic in commands that need platform-specific behavior (dev-gen-test, debug, fix-bug, dev-smoke-test).
+
+---
+
+## Step 6.7 — [GUARDRAILS] Load Project Lessons (conditional)
+
+*Accumulated mistakes the AI must not repeat in this project. These are added over time via `/learn`
+or accepted during `/review-code`, `/fix-bug`, `/debug`.*
+
+Resolve the lessons file path:
+- Use `paths.lessons_file` if set (may be service-overridden in umbrella mode, Step 1.6)
+- Else default `specs/domain-knowledge/lessons-learned.md`
+- In umbrella/service mode (when `service_root` is set), if `paths.lessons_file` is unset, default to `{service_root}/.agent/project-lessons.md`
+
+If the file exists, read it and store ALL lessons as **ACTIVE GUARDRAILS** for the session:
+- Treat each lesson's **Rule** as a hard constraint — same priority as CLAUDE.md coding standards (Step 3).
+- Before generating or modifying any artifact (PRD, BDD, tech-doc, code, test), check the output against every lesson whose `category` matches the current command AND whose `scope` matches the target (domain / file).
+- If a generated output would violate a lesson → correct it **before** presenting, and note which lesson (`L-NNN`) was applied.
+
+If the file does not exist → skip silently (no lessons captured yet).
+
+---
+
+## Step 7 — [RECAP] Working Memory Recap (anti-lost-in-middle)
+
+After loading all context, synthesize and output a compact summary block.
+This recap ensures the most critical facts are stated at the END of context loading
+(recency effect — freshest in working memory when the task begins).
+
+Output exactly this block:
+```
+[CTX LOADED]
+Stack     : {language} / {framework} / {database}
+Platform  : {active_module} ({platform_type})
+Layers    : {layer order from merged CLAUDE.md §2, e.g., Controller → Facade → Service → Repository}
+CLAUDE.md : {root + {service_root} | {service_root} only | root only | ⚠️ service overlay MISSING — using root | missing}
+Ticket    : {ticket_prefix}-
+Dict      : {loaded — N canonical terms, M banned terms | missing}
+Entities  : {loaded — EntityA, EntityB, EntityC | missing}
+Lessons   : {loaded — N guardrails | none yet}
+Service   : {active_service} ({active_service_module}) | single-service
+Svc Root  : {service_root} — conventions + trace_dir loaded from service config | —
+Status    : {FULL | PARTIAL — missing: CLAUDE.md / business-dict / core-entities | MINIMAL}
+```
+
+If any CRITICAL file is missing (CLAUDE.md), flag it clearly so the user can decide whether to proceed.
+
+---
+
+## Context Load Complete
+
+After completing all steps, you have loaded:
+- Project identity, tech stack, module conventions
+- Architecture rules and layer order  ← **[CRITICAL — hold in working memory]**
+- Coding standards and naming conventions  ← **[CRITICAL — hold in working memory]**
+- Data protection rules (sensitive file patterns to never access)
+- Terminology rules with banned-term list  ← **[DOMAIN — apply to every generated word]**
+- Entity catalog (field names, types, invariants)  ← **[DOMAIN — use for code generation]**
+- All configured paths
+
+Proceed to the next step of the calling command.
+
+
+---
+
+## Load Review Materials
+
+After loading base context, read the following in order:
+
+1. **Target tech-doc** — read fully. Extract from header:
+   - `@trace.id` → UC-ID
+   - `@trace.domain` → domain
+   - `@trace.prd` → source PRD ticket ID
+   - `@trace.status` → current status (draft / in-review / approved)
+
+2. **Source feature file** — load `{paths.specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/bdd/{UC-ID}*.feature` if exists.
+
+3. **Other tech-docs in same domain** — list and load all `.md` files in
+   `{paths.tech_docs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/` excluding the target. Used for conflict checking (T4).
+
+4. **Architecture reference** — re-confirm CLAUDE.md §2: layer order, architectural rules.
+
+5. **Core entities** — already loaded in context (Step 6 of context-loader).
+
+Derive findings filename:
+`{paths.refinement_dir}/{uc-id}-tech-review-findings.yaml`
+
+---
+
+## Review Dimensions
+
+### T1 — Architecture Alignment *(always CRITICAL if violated)*
+
+Cross-reference the proposed design against CLAUDE.md §2 rules:
+
+| Violation type | Severity |
+|----------------|----------|
+| Controller calls Repository directly (layer skip) | Critical |
+| Business logic in Controller or DTO | Critical |
+| Forbidden pattern from §3 | Critical |
+| Dependency going upstream (Service → Controller DTO) | Critical |
+| Transaction annotation on wrong layer | Major |
+| Missing separation (no Facade when arch requires it) | Major |
+
+For each finding:
+```
+Component: {class or method name}
+Violates:  "{rule text}" (CLAUDE.md §2)
+Fix:       {which layer/component should own this instead}
+```
+→ **Not auto-fixable.** Human must decide structural fix. Note required in Review Board.
+
+### T2 — Entity Consistency
+
+Using the loaded core-entities catalog:
+
+| Issue | Severity | Auto-fixable? |
+|-------|----------|---------------|
+| Entity mentioned not in core-entities.md | Major | No — human confirms if DTO or domain entity |
+| Field name differs from core-entities.md | Major | Yes — rename to canonical |
+| Relationship described differently | Major | No — human decides |
+| New entity introduced but not in core-entities.md | Minor | No — add to core-entities first |
+
+### T3 — BDD Traceability
+
+Cross-reference against the source `.feature` file:
+
+| Issue | Severity | Auto-fixable? |
+|-------|----------|---------------|
+| Tech-doc proposes behavior not in any BDD scenario | Major | No — create scenario first |
+| Tech-doc contradicts a BDD scenario | Critical | No — resolve conflict first |
+| UC scenario has no corresponding design decision | Minor | Yes — add missing design note |
+
+### T4 — Domain Conflict Check
+
+Compare against other tech-docs in `{paths.tech_docs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/`:
+
+| Issue | Severity | Auto-fixable? |
+|-------|----------|---------------|
+| Same endpoint defined with different request/response | Critical | No — human resolves |
+| Same service method with different behavior | Critical | No — human resolves |
+| Entity status transitions differ between docs | Critical | No — human resolves |
+| Overlapping responsibility (both docs claim ownership of same logic) | Major | No — human resolves |
+
+### T5 — Internal Consistency
+
+Within the tech-doc itself:
+
+| Check | Severity | Auto-fixable? |
+|-------|----------|---------------|
+| Sequence diagram shows different flow than written description | Major | No |
+| API spec return type differs from code sketch | Major | Yes — align one to the other |
+| Section references a component/concept never defined later | Minor | Yes — add definition |
+| Assumption stated but no design addresses it | Minor | Yes — add note or remove assumption |
+
+### T6 — Structural Completeness
+
+Check all standard sections are present and non-empty:
+
+| Section | Missing severity |
+|---------|-----------------|
+| Header (`@trace.id`, `@trace.prd`, `@trace.domain`, `@trace.status`) | Major |
+| Overview / Context | Major |
+| Architecture Decision with rationale | Major |
+| Component Diagram or Layer Description | Major |
+| Sequence Diagram or Flow Steps | Major |
+| API Contract (if HTTP-facing) | Major |
+| Data Model Changes (if entity changes) | Major |
+| Error Handling Strategy | Major |
+| Open Questions / Assumptions | Minor |
+
+→ All T6 missing-section findings are **auto-fixable**: AI adds skeleton section with prompts.
+
+### T7 — Cross-Team API Contract Review
+
+*Only applies when ALL of the following are true:*
+*1. Source BDD has `@trace.platform: system`.*
+*2. Tech-doc header does NOT have `@trace.api_source: existing`.*
+
+*If `@trace.api_source: existing` → **skip T7 entirely**. Contract đã được PO xác định trong PRD — không có API design mới để đồng thuận.*
+
+This dimension ensures FE, App, and BE teams all agree on the API contract before implementation starts.
+
+**Step 1 — Check sign-off status in tech-doc header:**
+
+Read the `@trace.sign_off` block in the tech doc header. If absent → add it as a finding (auto-fixable: add skeleton).
+
+```yaml
+# @trace.sign_off:
+#   be_team:  pending    # author — set to "done" when BE satisfied with design
+#   fe_team:  pending    # FE/Web — must confirm contract matches web BDD expectations
+#   app_team: pending    # App — must confirm contract matches app BDD expectations (if applicable)
+#   sa:       pending    # SA/Tech Lead — final approval
+```
+
+**Step 2 — Contract vs BDD cross-check:**
+
+Load the web and app BDDs for this TICKET-ID (from `{paths.specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/bdd/web/` and `{paths.specs_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/bdd/app/` in the spec submodule or spec repo).
+
+For each platform BDD, verify the tech doc's API contract satisfies the BDD's `Then` clauses:
+
+| Check | Severity |
+|---|---|
+| Response fields in API contract don't cover what web BDD `Then` expects | Critical |
+| Response fields in API contract don't cover what app BDD `Then` expects | Critical |
+| Error response shape doesn't match what platform BDDs expect | Major |
+| System BDD `@system.resolution` annotation contradicts the API contract design | Critical |
+
+**Step 3 — Pending sign-off report:**
+
+After the review, list which sign-offs are still `pending`:
+
+```
+⏳ Pending sign-offs before tech docs can be approved:
+  fe_team  — FE/Web team must confirm API contract matches web BDD expectations
+  app_team — App team must confirm API contract matches app BDD expectations
+  sa       — SA/Tech Lead final approval
+
+Once sign-offs are collected → update @trace.sign_off in tech doc header, then re-run /review-tech-docs.
+Tech docs cannot be set to "approved" while any required sign-off is pending.
+```
+
+**Approval gate:**
+- If `be_team: done` AND `fe_team: done` AND `app_team: done` (or N/A) AND `sa: done` → tech docs may be set to `approved`
+- Otherwise → `@trace.status` stays `in-review` — `generate-code` is blocked
+
+---
+
+## Write Findings File
+
+After running all checks, write findings to `{paths.refinement_dir}/{uc-id}-tech-review-findings.yaml`:
+
+```yaml
+source_file: "{absolute path to tech-doc}"
+uc_id: "{UC-ID}"
+domain: "{domain}"
+generated_at: "{ISO datetime}"
+review_type: "tech-design"
+status: "pending_review"
+is_system_bdd: {true | false}  # true if source BDD has @trace.platform: system
+
+sign_off:                       # only present when is_system_bdd: true
+  be_team:  pending             # read from @trace.sign_off in tech-doc header
+  fe_team:  pending
+  app_team: pending             # "n/a" if project has no app platform
+  sa:       pending
+sign_off_gate: blocked          # blocked | ready — "ready" only when all required are "done"
+
+findings:
+  - id: "F001"
+    check_id: "T1"           # T1–T7
+    severity: "critical"     # critical | major | minor
+    section: "{section heading or component name where issue was found}"
+    uc_id: "{UC-ID}"         # same as top-level uc_id (the UC this tech-doc designs)
+    quote: "{verbatim snippet copied EXACTLY from the tech-doc at the issue location, ≤120 chars}"
+    finding: "{clear description of the violation or gap}"
+    suggestion: "{specific fix — AI applies this in --resume if accepted}"
+    auto_fixable: false      # true = AI can apply; false = human must write decision in note
+    status: "pending"        # pending | accepted | modified | rejected | deferred
+
+summary:
+  total_findings: {N}
+  by_severity: { critical: {N}, major: {N}, minor: {N} }
+  auto_fixable: {N}
+  requires_human_decision: {N}
+  recommendation: "APPROVED | NEEDS_REVISION | BLOCKED"
+  sign_off_gate: "{blocked — pending: fe_team, app_team, sa | ready}"
+```
+
+> **Locator fields (`quote` + `uc_id`) — required for Review Board source-jump.**
+> For every finding, copy a short **verbatim** `quote` straight from the tech-doc at the exact spot
+> the issue occurs — do NOT paraphrase; it is matched against the document to locate the line.
+> These let a reviewer click a finding in the Review Board and jump to the precise source location.
+
+## Report
+
+# 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.)*
+
+
+```
+/review-tech-docs Complete — {target file}
+UC: {UC-ID} | Domain: {domain}
+Findings: {total} | 🔴 Critical: {N} | 🟡 Major: {N} | 🟢 Minor: {N}
+Auto-fixable: {N} | Needs human decision: {N}
+
+Sign-off gate (system BDD only):
+  be_team  : {done | pending}
+  fe_team  : {done | pending}   ← {name / "needs sign-off" }
+  app_team : {done | pending | n/a}
+  sa       : {done | pending}
+  Gate     : {🔒 BLOCKED — pending: fe_team, sa | ✅ READY}
+
+Findings file: {paths.refinement_dir}/{uc-id}-tech-review-findings.yaml
+Next: Open in Review Board → Accept/Modify/Reject each finding
+      Then run: /review-tech-docs --resume {tech-design-file}
+      After all sign-offs collected → update @trace.sign_off in tech doc, re-run review
+```
+
+---
+
+## Resume Mode — Apply Accepted Findings
+
+*Triggered when `$ARGUMENTS` contains `--resume`.*
+*Example: `/review-tech-docs --resume {paths.tech_docs_dir}/payment/{prd-slug}/tech-docs/PAY-UC1-tech-design.md`*
+
+### Phase 1 — Read accepted findings
+
+1. Derive findings file from target: `{paths.refinement_dir}/{uc-id}-tech-review-findings.yaml`
+2. Read the file. Collect findings where `status: "accepted"` or `status: "modified"`.
+3. If none → report "No accepted findings. File unchanged." and stop.
+
+### Phase 2 — Apply fixes
+
+Apply in order: critical → major → minor.
+
+| check_id | What to do |
+|----------|-----------|
+| T1 (Architecture) | Apply the structural fix from finding note — move logic to correct layer, update component description |
+| T2 (Field name) | Rename field to canonical name from core-entities.md throughout the document |
+| T3 (Missing design note) | Add design decision note for the uncovered scenario |
+| T5 (Internal inconsistency) | Align the conflicting sections to the decision stated in the note |
+| T6 (Missing section) | Add skeleton section with placeholder prompts for the tech lead to fill |
+
+**T1, T2, T4 findings with `auto_fixable: false`:** require a human-written resolution in the
+Review Board "Modify" note. Apply exactly what the note says. Do not invent the fix.
+
+### Phase 3 — Update header + TSV + Report
+
+Edit the tech-doc file directly:
+1. Find `@trace.revision:` in the header — increment its integer value by 1.
+2. Find `@trace.status:` in the header:
+   - If sign_off_gate = `ready` (all sign-offs done) → set to `approved`
+   - Otherwise → set to `in-review` (blocks `/generate-code`)
+3. If `@trace.sign_off` block is absent and this is a system BDD tech doc → add it with all values `pending`.
+
+Write both changes to the file.
+
+Then update `{paths.trace_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/{UC-ID}.tsv` — pick the column by which tech-doc was reviewed (read the filename):
+- **BE contract** (`{UC-ID}-tech-design.md`) → set `tech_doc_revision` to the new `@trace.revision` integer for all rows of this UC.
+- **FE tech-design** (`{UC-ID}-tech-design-{platform}.md`) → set `fe_tech_doc_revision` instead, for the rows of this UC on that platform (leave `tech_doc_revision` untouched).
+- Set `last_updated` to today's date (`YYYY-MM-DD`) for all rows of this UC.
+
+Print the report after all file writes are complete.
+
+```
+/review-tech-docs --resume Applied — {target file}
+UC: {UC-ID}
+
+Applied  : {N} findings ({critical} critical, {major} major, {minor} minor)
+Skipped  : {N} rejected/deferred
+
+Changes:
+  - {change 1}
+  - {change 2}
+
+Revision : {old} → {new}
+Status   : {approved | in-review}
+
+Sign-off : {✅ All done — status set to approved
+           | 🔒 Pending: fe_team, sa — status set to in-review
+              Update @trace.sign_off in tech doc when each team confirms, then re-run /review-tech-docs}
+
+Re-run /review-tech-docs {file} to confirm 0 remaining critical findings.
+Next: {/generate-code {feature-file}  ← only if status = approved
+      | Collect pending sign-offs → update @trace.sign_off → re-run /review-tech-docs}
+      → if the tech-doc lives in the shared spec repo: commit + push it to the spec submodule so FE/App `/sync` the updated contract
+```