@kudusov.takhir/ba-toolkit 3.6.0 → 3.8.0

package/skills/handoff/SKILL.md

@@ -22,13 +22,15 @@ Read `references/environment.md` from the `ba-toolkit` directory to determine th
 
 ## Generation
 
-No interview. All content is derived from the existing artifacts.
+No interview. All content is derived from the existing artifacts. The full template lives at `references/templates/handoff-template.md` and is the single source of truth — including the full inventory of pipeline-stage and cross-cutting artifacts (`/discovery`, `/principles`, `/implement-plan`, `/sprint`, `/risk`, `/glossary`, `/trace`, `/analyze`, `/estimate`), the Brief Goal → FR / FR → NFR / FR → API forward-traceability tables, the ADR summary, and the formal Sign-off section.
 
 **File:** `11_handoff_{slug}.md`
 
 ```markdown
 # Development Handoff: {Project Name}
 
+**Version:** 1.0
+**Status:** Draft | In Review | Approved
 **Date:** {date}
 **Domain:** {domain}
 **Pipeline completion:** {n}/{total} steps completed
@@ -37,19 +39,36 @@ No interview. All content is derived from the existing artifacts.
 
 ## 1. Artifact Inventory
 
-| Artifact | File | Status | Key numbers |
-|----------|------|--------|-------------|
-| Project Brief | `01_brief_{slug}.md` | ✓ Complete | {n} goals, {n} risks |
-| SRS | `02_srs_{slug}.md` | ✓ Complete | {n} FR ({must}/{should}/{could}/{wont}) |
-| User Stories | `03_stories_{slug}.md` | ✓ Complete | {n} stories across {n} epics |
-| Use Cases | `04_usecases_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} UC |
-| Acceptance Criteria | `05_ac_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} AC |
-| NFR | `06_nfr_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} NFR across {n} categories |
-| Research | `07a_research_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {tech decisions} |
-| Data Dictionary | `07_datadict_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} entities, {n} attributes |
-| API Contract | `08_apicontract_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} endpoints |
-| Wireframes | `09_wireframes_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} screens |
-| Scenarios | `10_scenarios_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {n} scenarios |
+### Pipeline-stage artifacts
+
+| Stage | Artifact | File | Status | Key numbers |
+|-------|----------|------|--------|-------------|
+| 0 | Discovery | `00_discovery_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {recommended domain, MVP feature count} |
+| 0a | Principles | `00_principles_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {testing strategy, ID conventions, NFR baseline characteristics} |
+| 1 | Project Brief | `01_brief_{slug}.md` | ✓ Complete | {n} goals, {n} stakeholders, {n} risks, {n} assumptions |
+| 2 | SRS | `02_srs_{slug}.md` | ✓ Complete | {n} FR ({must}/{should}/{could}/{wont}) |
+| 3 | User Stories | `03_stories_{slug}.md` | ✓ Complete | {n} stories across {n} epics |
+| 4 | Use Cases | `04_usecases_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} UC |
+| 5 | Acceptance Criteria | `05_ac_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} AC ({pos}/{neg}/{boundary}/{perf}) |
+| 6 | NFR | `06_nfr_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} NFR across {n} ISO 25010 characteristics |
+| 7 | Data Dictionary | `07_datadict_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} entities, {n} attributes |
+| 7a | Research | `07a_research_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {n} ADRs, {n} integrations |
+| 8 | API Contract | `08_apicontract_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} endpoints |
+| 9 | Wireframes | `09_wireframes_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing | {n} screens |
+| 10 | Scenarios | `10_scenarios_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {n} scenarios |
+| 11 | Handoff | `11_handoff_{slug}.md` | This document | — |
+| 12 | Implementation Plan | `12_implplan_{slug}.md` | ✓ / ✗ Missing / — Not run | {n} phases, {n} tasks |
+
+### Cross-cutting artifacts
+
+| Tool | File | Status | Key numbers |
+|------|------|--------|-------------|
+| Trace | `00_trace_{slug}.md` | ✓ / — Not run | Overall coverage {n}% |
+| Analyze | `00_analyze_{slug}.md` | ✓ / — Not run | {n} CRITICAL, {n} HIGH findings |
+| Risk | `00_risks_{slug}.md` | ✓ / — Not run | {n} risks ({n} Critical / {n} High) |
+| Sprint | `00_sprint_{slug}.md` | ✓ / — Not run | {n} sprints, {n} weeks |
+| Glossary | `00_glossary_{slug}.md` | ✓ / — Not run | {n} terms, {n} drift findings |
+| Estimate | inline in stories or `00_estimate_{slug}.md` | ✓ / — Not run | {n} SP total ± {confidence band} |
 
 ---
 
@@ -68,14 +87,18 @@ Must-priority items confirmed for the first release:
 ## 3. Traceability Coverage
 
 | Chain | Coverage |
-|-------|---------|
+|-------|----------|
+| Brief Goal → FR | {n}% ({uncovered} goals uncovered) |
 | FR → US | {n}% ({uncovered} uncovered) |
 | US → UC | {n}% |
-| US → AC | {n}% |
+| US → AC (Positive / Negative / Boundary) | {n}% / {n}% / {n}% |
 | FR → NFR | {n}% |
-| Entity → FR/US | {n}% |
-| Endpoint → FR/US | {n}% |
-| WF → US | {n}% |
+| FR → Entity | {n}% |
+| FR → API Endpoint | {n}% |
+| US → WF | {n}% |
+| US → Scenario | {n}% |
+| FR → Implementation Task (if `12_implplan` exists) | {n}% |
+| NFR → ADR | {n}% |
 
 {If coverage is below 100% for any CRITICAL chain, list uncovered items explicitly.}
 
@@ -114,13 +137,34 @@ Must-priority items confirmed for the first release:
 
 ---
 
-## 7. Artifact Files Reference
+## 7. Architecture Decision Summary
+
+Top architectural decisions from `07a_research_{slug}.md`. Dev team should read each linked ADR before starting the corresponding phase.
+
+| ADR | Decision | Drivers | Phase impact |
+|-----|----------|---------|--------------|
+| ADR-001 | {chosen tech for layer X} | NFR-{NNN}, FR-{NNN} | Phase {N} of `/implement-plan` |
+| ADR-002 | {decision} | {drivers} | {phase impact} |
+
+## 8. Artifact Files Reference
 
 All files are located in: `{output_directory}`
 
 ```
 {file tree of all generated artifacts}
 ```
+
+## 9. Sign-off
+
+Formal acceptance of the handoff package. Signing this section means the development team agrees the BA package is sufficient to begin implementation.
+
+| Role | Name | Sign-off Date | Notes |
+|------|------|---------------|-------|
+| Business Analyst | {name} | {date} | {notes} |
+| Product Manager | {name} | {date} | {notes} |
+| Tech Lead | {name} | {date} | {notes} |
+| QA Lead | {name} | {date} | {notes} |
+| Stakeholder | {name} | {date} | {notes} |
 ```
 
 ## Iterative refinement

package/skills/implement-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -69,7 +69,10 @@ Required topics for the calibration interview (skip any topic already answered b
 3. Database (engine, version, hosting model).
 4. Hosting / deployment target.
 5. Auth / identity approach (in-house vs. SSO vs. managed service).
-6. Mandatory integrations from `02_srs` (carry over verbatim — do not re-decide them).
+6. **Observability platform** — logging, metrics, traces stack (Datadog / New Relic / Grafana / OpenTelemetry self-hosted). Drives Phase 8 (Quality & NFRs) tasks.
+7. **CI/CD platform** — GitHub Actions / GitLab CI / CircleCI / Jenkins / other. Drives Phase 1 (Foundation) tasks.
+8. **Secret management** — environment variables / Vault / AWS Secrets Manager / Doppler / 1Password CLI. Drives Phase 1 (Foundation) tasks.
+9. Mandatory integrations from `02_srs` (carry over verbatim — do not re-decide them).
 
 **Step 3 — TBD slots.** If neither `/research` nor the interview yields a value for a slot (e.g. user picked "Other" without a concrete answer), record `[TBD: <slot>]` in the output's "Tech stack" header AND add a row to the "Open Assumptions" section so the AI coding agent knows it must ask before starting any task that touches that slot.
 
@@ -107,7 +110,7 @@ Each task is one atomic, AI-actionable unit of work. Rules:
 - **files:** list of file paths the AI agent should create or modify (best-effort; framework-dependent). Optional. Examples: `src/db/schema.sql`, `apps/api/src/auth/login.controller.ts`. **If unknown, omit rather than guess.**
 - **definitionOfDone:** bullet list of acceptance hooks. Pull from the linked AC where possible ("AC-001-03 passes", "endpoint returns 401 on invalid credentials"). Always include a type-check / lint hook on backend tasks and a render-state hook on UI tasks.
 
-Within a phase, order tasks so each task's `dependsOn` list points only at tasks already listed. Risk-elevated tasks (mitigating Critical / High risks from `00_risks_*.md`) come earliest within their priority tier.
+Within a phase, order tasks so each task's `dependsOn` list points only at tasks already listed. **Risk-elevated tasks come earliest within their phase**: any task whose `references` include an FR / US / NFR linked to a 🔴 Critical or 🟡 High risk in `00_risks_*.md` is pulled to the front of its phase, ahead of equally-prioritised tasks. Rationale: validate risky bets early, when there's still time to pivot. Tag risk-elevated tasks with `**Risk:** RISK-NN ↑` next to their title so the AI agent and the human reviewer both see the elevation reason.
 
 ### 7. Generation
 
@@ -132,6 +135,9 @@ Within a phase, order tasks so each task's `dependsOn` list points only at tasks
 | Database | {…} | … |
 | Hosting | {…} | … |
 | Auth | {…} | … |
+| Observability (logs / metrics / traces) | {…} | … |
+| CI / CD | {…} | … |
+| Secret management | {…} | … |
 | Mandatory integrations | {…} | … |
 
 ---

package/skills/principles/SKILL.md

@@ -38,10 +38,13 @@ If `01_brief_*.md` already exists, extract the slug and domain from it. Otherwis
 **Required topics:**
 1. Artifact language — which language should all artifacts be generated in? (default: the language of the user's first message)
 2. Traceability strictness — should every Must-priority US require a Use Case, or only US with complex flows? (default: only complex flows)
-3. NFR baseline — which additional NFR categories are always required beyond the domain defaults? (e.g., GDPR compliance, WCAG accessibility)
-4. Definition of Ready — any project-specific acceptance criteria for finalizing an artifact? (e.g., stakeholder sign-off, specific review steps)
+3. NFR baseline — which **ISO/IEC 25010** quality characteristics are mandatory beyond the domain defaults? (Performance Efficiency / Reliability / Security / Compatibility / Usability / Maintainability / Portability / Functional Suitability — `/nfr` reads this list verbatim and treats it as a checklist).
+4. Definition of Ready — any project-specific acceptance criteria for finalizing an artifact beyond the `v3.7.0+` baseline DoR per artifact type listed in §4 below? (e.g., stakeholder sign-off, specific review steps).
 5. Quality gate — at what severity level should `/analyze` findings block `/done`? (default: CRITICAL only)
 6. Output folder structure — save all artifacts flat in the output directory (default), or inside a `{slug}/` subfolder? (useful when managing multiple projects side by side)
+7. **Testing strategy** — TDD (tests before implementation), tests-after, integration-only, manual-only, none? Drives whether `/implement-plan` task templates embed "Tests to write first" blocks. **Recommended:** TDD for production-grade systems; tests-after for prototypes; manual-only or none for spike work. *(This is the principles-based approach to the testing-discipline question that batch 6 item 2 surfaced — the right place to declare a testing strategy is here, not as a separate skill.)*
+8. **Stakeholder decision authority** — who has sign-off authority on changes to these principles? Captured by name and role. Without this, principle changes become contentious mid-project.
+9. **Code review and branching policy** — trunk-based / GitFlow / GitHub flow? Required reviewers per PR? `/implement-plan` and downstream skills assume one of these defaults but the principles file is the source of truth.
 
 ### 4. Generation
 

package/skills/references/templates/analyze-template.md

@@ -1,16 +1,19 @@
 # Quality Analysis Report: [PROJECT_NAME]
 
+**Version:** 0.1
+**Status:** Draft
 **Domain:** [DOMAIN]
 **Date:** [DATE]
 **Slug:** [SLUG]
 **Artifacts Analysed:** [List of artifact files included in this analysis]
+**Severity threshold (blocks /done):** [CRITICAL / HIGH / per `00_principles_[SLUG].md` §6]
 
 ---
 
 ## Finding Summary
 
 | Severity | Count |
-|---------|-------|
+|----------|-------|
 | 🔴 Critical | [N] |
 | 🟠 High | [N] |
 | 🟡 Medium | [N] |
@@ -21,20 +24,25 @@
 
 ## Findings
 
-| # | Severity | Category | Location | Description | Recommendation |
-|---|---------|---------|---------|-------------|---------------|
-| 1 | 🔴 Critical | [Duplication \| Ambiguity \| Coverage Gap \| Terminology Drift \| Invalid Reference] | [Artifact + section] | [What the issue is] | [How to fix it] |
-| 2 | 🟠 High | [Category] | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] |
-| 3 | 🟡 Medium | [Category] | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] |
-| 4 | 🟢 Low | [Category] | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] |
-
-### Finding Categories
-
-- **Duplication** — same requirement, entity, or AC scenario defined in more than one artifact.
-- **Ambiguity** — undefined terms, metrics-free adjectives ("fast", "user-friendly"), or unclear actors.
-- **Coverage Gap** — FR with no US, US with no AC, or endpoint with no FR reference.
-- **Terminology Drift** — same concept called different names across artifacts (e.g. "user" vs "customer" vs "account").
-- **Invalid Reference** — cross-reference points to an ID that does not exist in the linked artifact.
+| # | Severity | Category | Location | Description | Recommendation | Owner |
+|---|----------|----------|----------|-------------|----------------|-------|
+| 1 | 🔴 Critical | Coverage Gap | [Artifact + section] | [What the issue is] | [How to fix it] | BA |
+| 2 | 🟠 High | Duplication | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] | BA |
+| 3 | 🟡 Medium | Ambiguity | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] | BA |
+| 4 | 🟠 High | Underspecified Source | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] | BA |
+| 5 | 🟠 High | Stakeholder Validation Gap | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] | PM |
+| 6 | 🟢 Low | Terminology Drift | [Location] | [Description] | [Recommendation] | BA |
+
+### Finding Categories *(8 canonical, mapped to IEEE 830 §4.3 SRS quality attributes)*
+
+- **Duplication** *(IEEE 830: consistency)* — same requirement, entity, or AC scenario defined in more than one artifact.
+- **Ambiguity** *(IEEE 830: unambiguous)* — undefined terms, metrics-free adjectives ("fast", "user-friendly"), unclear actors, modal verb confusion (must / shall / should / may).
+- **Coverage Gap** *(IEEE 830: complete + traceable)* — FR with no US, US with no AC, endpoint with no FR reference, Task with no upstream reference.
+- **Terminology Drift** *(IEEE 830: consistent)* — same concept called different names across artifacts (e.g. "user" vs "customer" vs "account").
+- **Invalid Reference** *(IEEE 830: traceable)* — cross-reference points to an ID that does not exist in the linked artifact.
+- **Inconsistency** *(IEEE 830: consistent)* — same fact stated differently across artifacts (e.g. brief says €1.5M GMV, srs says €2M).
+- **Underspecified Source** *(post-v3.5.0 provenance discipline)* — FR / UC / AC / Entity / Endpoint missing the `Source` field that the v3.5.0+ template requires.
+- **Stakeholder Validation Gap** *(post-v3.5.0 assumption discipline)* — assumption with no Owner, or past its Validate by date and not converted to fact or risk.
 
 ---
 

package/skills/references/templates/discovery-template.md

@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
 # Discovery: [PROJECT_NAME]
 
+**Version:** 0.1
+**Status:** Concept (pre-brief) | In Review | Locked
 **Slug:** [SLUG]
 **Date:** [DATE]
-**Status:** Concept (pre-brief)
+**Decision date:** [DATE — when the recommended domain was locked in]
+**Decision owner:** [Name + role]
 
 ## 1. Problem Space
 
@@ -61,3 +64,23 @@ Things we do not yet know and need to learn before committing real resources.
 - **Domain:** [chosen domain]
 - **Scope hint for `/brief`:** [one-sentence summary the user can paste as inline context: `/brief [scope hint]`]
 - **Suggested first interview focus in `/brief`:** [1–2 topics from this discovery doc that are now firm enough to anchor the brief]
+
+---
+
+## 9. Hypotheses → Brief Goals (filled in after `/brief`)
+
+Forward traceability from the discovery hypotheses to the brief business goals they became. Filled in by `/brief` when it consumes this discovery artifact, then preserved here for retrospective validation: 3 months after launch, did the chosen audience hypothesis hold? Did the MVP features that the differentiation angle predicted would matter actually drive adoption?
+
+| Discovery section | Hypothesis | Brief Goal G-N | Status |
+|-------------------|------------|----------------|--------|
+| §1 Problem space | [problem statement] | G-1 | Validated / Refined / Disproved / Pending |
+| §2 Audience (Primary) | [primary segment] | G-2 | Validated / Refined / Disproved / Pending |
+| §5 MVP feature 1 | [feature] | G-3 | Validated / Refined / Disproved / Pending |
+
+---
+
+## Approvals
+
+| Name | Role | Approval Date | Notes |
+|------|------|---------------|-------|
+| [name] | [role] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [optional notes] |

package/skills/references/templates/handoff-template.md

@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 # Development Handoff Package: [PROJECT_NAME]
 
+**Version:** 1.0
+**Status:** Draft
 **Domain:** [DOMAIN]
 **Date:** [DATE]
 **Slug:** [SLUG]
@@ -8,31 +10,47 @@
 
 ---
 
-## Artifact Inventory
-
-| Artifact | File | Status | Last Updated |
-|---------|------|--------|-------------|
-| Principles | `00_principles_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Project Brief | `01_brief_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| SRS | `02_srs_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| User Stories | `03_stories_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Use Cases | `04_usecases_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Acceptance Criteria | `05_ac_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| NFR | `06_nfr_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Data Dictionary | `07_datadict_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Research / ADRs | `07a_research_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| API Contract | `08_apicontract_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Wireframes | `09_wireframes_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
-| Validation Scenarios | `10_scenarios_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+## 1. Artifact Inventory
+
+### Pipeline-stage artifacts
+
+| Stage | Artifact | File | Status | Last Updated |
+|-------|----------|------|--------|--------------|
+| 0 | Discovery | `00_discovery_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| 0a | Principles | `00_principles_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| 1 | Project Brief | `01_brief_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 2 | SRS | `02_srs_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 3 | User Stories | `03_stories_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 4 | Use Cases | `04_usecases_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 5 | Acceptance Criteria | `05_ac_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 6 | NFR | `06_nfr_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 7 | Data Dictionary | `07_datadict_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 7a | Research / ADRs | `07a_research_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 8 | API Contract | `08_apicontract_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 9 | Wireframes | `09_wireframes_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 10 | Validation Scenarios | `10_scenarios_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete | [DATE] |
+| 11 | Handoff | `11_handoff_[SLUG].md` | This document | [DATE] |
+| 12 | Implementation Plan | `12_implplan_[SLUG].md` | ✅ Complete / — Not run | [DATE] |
+
+### Cross-cutting artifacts
+
+| Tool | File | Status | Last Updated |
+|------|------|--------|--------------|
+| Trace | `00_trace_[SLUG].md` | ✅ / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| Analyze | `00_analyze_[SLUG].md` | ✅ / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| Risk Register | `00_risks_[SLUG].md` | ✅ / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| Sprint Plan | `00_sprint_[SLUG].md` | ✅ / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| Glossary | `00_glossary_[SLUG].md` | ✅ / — Not run | [DATE] |
+| Estimate | inline in `03_stories_[SLUG].md` or `00_estimate_[SLUG].md` | ✅ / — Not run | [DATE] |
 
 ---
 
-## MVP Scope
+## 2. MVP Scope
 
 **In scope for MVP:**
 
 | ID | Title | Type | Priority |
-|----|-------|------|---------|
+|----|-------|------|----------|
 | FR-[NNN] | [Title] | Functional | Must |
 | US-[NNN] | [Story title] | Story | Must |
 
@@ -44,34 +62,43 @@
 
 ---
 
-## Traceability Coverage
+## 3. Traceability Coverage
 
-| Link | Coverage | Gap |
-|------|---------|-----|
+| Chain | Coverage | Gap |
+|-------|----------|-----|
+| Brief Goal → FR | [N]% | [N goals uncovered] |
 | FR → US | [N]% | [N orphaned FRs] |
-| US → AC | [N]% | [N stories without AC] |
-| FR → API | [N]% | [N FRs without endpoint] |
+| US → UC | [N]% | [N stories without UC] |
+| US → AC (Positive / Negative / Boundary) | [N]% / [N]% / [N]% | [N stories without negative AC] |
+| FR → NFR | [N]% | [N FRs without an NFR] |
+| FR → Entity | [N]% | [N FRs without entity] |
+| FR → API Endpoint | [N]% | [N FRs without endpoint] |
 | US → WF | [N]% | [N stories without wireframe] |
+| US → Scenario | [N]% | [N stories without scenario] |
+| FR → Implementation Task | [N]% | [N FRs without task] |
+| NFR → ADR | [N]% | [N NFRs without architectural decision] |
 
 ---
 
-## Open Items
+## 4. Open Items
 
 | # | Type | Description | Owner | Priority |
-|---|------|-------------|-------|---------|
-| 1 | [Decision \| Clarification \| Dependency] | [Description] | [Role] | P1 / P2 / P3 |
+|---|------|-------------|-------|----------|
+| 1 | Decision / Clarification / Dependency / Risk | [Description] | [Role] | P1 / P2 / P3 |
 
 ---
 
-## Top Risks for Development
+## 5. Top Risks for Development
 
-| # | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
-|---|------|-------------|--------|-----------|
-| 1 | [Risk] | High / Med / Low | High / Med / Low | [Mitigation] |
+| # | Risk | Probability | Impact | Velocity | Treatment | Mitigation |
+|---|------|-------------|--------|----------|-----------|------------|
+| 1 | [Risk] | High / Med / Low | High / Med / Low | Days / Weeks / Months | Avoid / Reduce / Transfer / Accept | [Mitigation] |
+
+*(Pulled from `00_risks_[SLUG].md` — top 5 by score.)*
 
 ---
 
-## Recommended Development Sequence
+## 6. Recommended Development Sequence
 
 1. **[Phase / Sprint 1]** — [What to build first and why]
 2. **[Phase / Sprint 2]** — [Next priority]
@@ -79,14 +106,32 @@
 
 _Rationale: [Why this sequencing — dependencies, risk, user value.]_
 
+If `12_implplan_[SLUG].md` has been generated, use the phase ladder + Task DAG appendix from there as the canonical sequence; the recommendation above is the human-friendly summary.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Architecture Decision Summary
+
+Top architectural decisions from `07a_research_[SLUG].md`. Dev team should read each linked ADR before starting the corresponding phase.
+
+| ADR | Decision | Drivers | Phase impact |
+|-----|----------|---------|--------------|
+| ADR-001 | [chosen tech for layer X] | NFR-[NNN], FR-[NNN] | Phase [N] of `/implement-plan` |
+| ADR-002 | [decision] | [drivers] | [phase impact] |
+
 ---
 
-## Artifact Files Reference
+## 8. Artifact Files Reference
 
 ```
 output/[SLUG]/
+├── 00_discovery_[SLUG].md
 ├── 00_principles_[SLUG].md
 ├── 00_analyze_[SLUG].md
+├── 00_glossary_[SLUG].md
+├── 00_risks_[SLUG].md
+├── 00_sprint_[SLUG].md
+├── 00_trace_[SLUG].md
 ├── 01_brief_[SLUG].md
 ├── 02_srs_[SLUG].md
 ├── 03_stories_[SLUG].md
@@ -98,5 +143,20 @@ output/[SLUG]/
 ├── 08_apicontract_[SLUG].md
 ├── 09_wireframes_[SLUG].md
 ├── 10_scenarios_[SLUG].md
-└── 11_handoff_[SLUG].md     ← this document
+├── 11_handoff_[SLUG].md     ← this document
+└── 12_implplan_[SLUG].md
 ```
+
+---
+
+## 9. Sign-off
+
+Formal acceptance of the handoff package. Signing this section means the development team agrees the BA package is sufficient to begin implementation. Outstanding open items (§4) and uncovered traceability chains (§3) must be acknowledged or resolved before sign-off.
+
+| Role | Name | Sign-off Date | Notes |
+|------|------|---------------|-------|
+| Business Analyst | [name] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [notes] |
+| Product Manager | [name] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [notes] |
+| Tech Lead | [name] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [notes] |
+| QA Lead | [name] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [notes] |
+| Stakeholder / Sponsor | [name] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [notes] |