@leeovery/claude-technical-workflows 2.1.23 → 2.1.25

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/define-phases.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Read the Plan Index File. Check if phases already exist in the body.
 
 Orient the user:
 
-> "Phase structure already exists. I'll present it for your review."
+"Phase structure already exists. I'll present it for your review."
 
 Continue to **Review and Approve** below.
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Continue to **Review and Approve** below.
 
 Orient the user:
 
-> "I'll delegate phase design to a specialist agent. It will read the full specification and propose a phase structure — how we break this into independently testable stages."
+"I'll delegate phase design to a specialist agent. It will read the full specification and propose a phase structure — how we break this into independently testable stages."
 
 ### Invoke the Agent
 
@@ -57,16 +57,18 @@ Present the phase structure to the user as rendered markdown (not in a code bloc
 
 **STOP.** Ask:
 
-> **Phase Structure**
->
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> **To proceed:**
-> - **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll proceed to task breakdown.
-> - **Or tell me what to change** — reorder, split, merge, add, edit, or remove phases.
-> - **Or navigate** — a different phase or task, or the leading edge.
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**Phase Structure**
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
+
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**To proceed:**
+- **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll proceed to task breakdown.
+- **Or tell me what to change** — reorder, split, merge, add, edit, or remove phases.
+- **Or navigate** — a different phase or task, or the leading edge.
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 #### If the user provides feedback
 

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/define-tasks.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ This step uses the `planning-task-designer` agent (`../../../../agents/planning-
 
 Orient the user:
 
-> "Taking Phase {N}: {Phase Name} and breaking it into tasks. I'll delegate this to a specialist agent that will read the full specification and propose a task list."
+"Taking Phase {N}: {Phase Name} and breaking it into tasks. I'll delegate this to a specialist agent that will read the full specification and propose a task list."
 
 ### Invoke the Agent
 
@@ -42,14 +42,16 @@ Present the task overview to the user as rendered markdown (not in a code block)
 
 **STOP.** Ask:
 
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> **To proceed:**
-> - **`y`/`yes`** — Approved.
-> - **Or tell me what to change** — reorder, split, merge, add, edit, or remove tasks.
-> - **Or navigate** — a different phase or task, or the leading edge.
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**To proceed:**
+- **`y`/`yes`** — Approved.
+- **Or tell me what to change** — reorder, split, merge, add, edit, or remove tasks.
+- **Or navigate** — a different phase or task, or the leading edge.
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 #### If the user provides feedback
 

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/plan-construction.md

@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Work through each phase in order.
 
 Orient the user:
 
-> "I'll now work through each phase — presenting existing work for review and designing or authoring anything still pending. You'll approve at every stage."
+"I'll now work through each phase — presenting existing work for review and designing or authoring anything still pending. You'll approve at every stage."
 
 ### For each phase, check its state:
 
@@ -69,16 +69,18 @@ After Step A returns with an approved task table, continue to **Author Tasks for
 
 Present the task list to the user as rendered markdown (not in a code block).
 
-> **Phase {N}: {Phase Name}** — {M} tasks.
->
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> **To proceed:**
-> - **`y`/`yes`** — Confirmed.
-> - **Or tell me what to change.**
-> - **Or navigate** — a different phase or task, or the leading edge.
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**Phase {N}: {Phase Name}** — {M} tasks.
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
+
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**To proceed:**
+- **`y`/`yes`** — Confirmed.
+- **Or tell me what to change.**
+- **Or navigate** — a different phase or task, or the leading edge.
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 **STOP.** Wait for the user's response.
 
@@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ Never parallelize the first `pending` task in a phase. Never parallelize across
 
 Already written. Present a brief summary:
 
-> "Task {M} of {total}: {Task Name} — already authored."
+"Task {M} of {total}: {Task Name} — already authored."
 
 Continue to the next task.
 
@@ -121,7 +123,7 @@ After Step B returns, the task is authored. Continue to the next task.
 
 Advance the `planning:` block in frontmatter to the next phase. Commit: `planning({topic}): complete Phase {N} tasks`
 
-> Phase {N}: {Phase Name} — complete ({M} tasks authored).
+Phase {N}: {Phase Name} — complete ({M} tasks authored).
 
 Continue to the next phase.
 
@@ -131,7 +133,7 @@ Continue to the next phase.
 
 When all phases have all tasks authored:
 
-> "All phases are complete. The plan has **{N} phases** with **{M} tasks** total."
+"All phases are complete. The plan has **{N} phases** with **{M} tasks** total."
 
 ---
 

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/plan-review.md

@@ -85,10 +85,10 @@ After both reviews:
 
 3. **Confirm with the user**:
 
-> "The plan has passed both reviews:
-> - **Traceability**: All specification content is covered; no hallucinated content
-> - **Integrity**: Plan structure, tasks, and dependencies are implementation-ready
->
-> Review is complete."
+"The plan has passed both reviews:
+- **Traceability**: All specification content is covered; no hallucinated content
+- **Integrity**: Plan structure, tasks, and dependencies are implementation-ready
+
+Review is complete."
 
 > **CHECKPOINT**: Do not confirm completion if tracking files still exist. They indicate incomplete review work.

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/resolve-dependencies.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 
 Orient the user:
 
-> "All phases and tasks are written. Now I'll check for external dependencies — things this plan needs from other topics or systems."
+"All phases and tasks are written. Now I'll check for external dependencies — things this plan needs from other topics or systems."
 
 After all phases are detailed and written, handle external dependencies — things this plan needs from other topics or systems.
 
@@ -43,13 +43,15 @@ Skip the resolution and reverse check — there is nothing to resolve against. D
 
 **STOP.** Present a summary of the dependency state: what was documented, what was resolved, what remains unresolved, and any reverse resolutions made.
 
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> **To proceed:**
-> - **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll proceed to plan review.
-> - **Or tell me what to change.**
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**To proceed:**
+- **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll proceed to plan review.
+- **Or tell me what to change.**
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 #### If the user provides feedback
 

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/review-integrity.md

@@ -87,15 +87,15 @@ Then:
 
 **Stage 1: Summary**
 
-> "I've completed the plan integrity review. I found [N] items:
->
-> 1. **[Brief title]** (Critical/Important/Minor)
->    [2-4 line explanation: what the issue is, why it matters for implementation]
->
-> 2. **[Brief title]** (Critical/Important/Minor)
->    [2-4 line explanation]
->
-> Let's work through these one at a time, starting with #1."
+"I've completed the plan integrity review. I found [N] items:
+
+1. **[Brief title]** (Critical/Important/Minor)
+   [2-4 line explanation: what the issue is, why it matters for implementation]
+
+2. **[Brief title]** (Critical/Important/Minor)
+   [2-4 line explanation]
+
+Let's work through these one at a time, starting with #1."
 
 **Stage 2: Process One Item at a Time**
 
@@ -105,15 +105,15 @@ Work through each finding **one at a time**. For each finding: present it, propo
 
 Show the finding with full detail:
 
-> **Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
->
-> **Severity**: Critical | Important | Minor
->
-> **Plan Reference**: [Phase/task in the plan]
->
-> **Category**: [Which review criterion — e.g., "Task Template Compliance", "Vertical Slicing"]
->
-> **Details**: [What the issue is and why it matters for implementation]
+**Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
+
+**Severity**: Critical | Important | Minor
+
+**Plan Reference**: [Phase/task in the plan]
+
+**Category**: [Which review criterion — e.g., "Task Template Compliance", "Vertical Slicing"]
+
+**Details**: [What the issue is and why it matters for implementation]
 
 ### Propose the Fix
 
@@ -123,62 +123,64 @@ State the action type explicitly so the user knows what's changing structurally:
 
 **Update a task** — change content within an existing task:
 
-> **Proposed fix — update Phase {N}, Task {M}:**
->
-> **Current:**
-> [The existing content as it appears in the plan]
->
-> **Proposed:**
-> [The replacement content]
+**Proposed fix — update Phase {N}, Task {M}:**
+
+**Current:**
+[The existing content as it appears in the plan]
+
+**Proposed:**
+[The replacement content]
 
 **Add content to a task** — insert into an existing task (e.g., missing acceptance criteria, edge case):
 
-> **Proposed fix — add to Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
->
-> [The exact content to be added, in plan format]
+**Proposed fix — add to Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
+
+[The exact content to be added, in plan format]
 
 **Remove content from a task** — strip content that shouldn't be there:
 
-> **Proposed fix — remove from Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
->
-> [The exact content to be removed]
+**Proposed fix — remove from Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
+
+[The exact content to be removed]
 
 **Add a new task** — a spec section has no plan coverage and needs its own task:
 
-> **Proposed fix — add new task to Phase {N}:**
->
-> [The complete task in plan format, using the task template]
+**Proposed fix — add new task to Phase {N}:**
+
+[The complete task in plan format, using the task template]
 
 **Remove a task** — an entire task is hallucinated with no spec backing:
 
-> **Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}, Task {M}: {Task Name}**
->
-> **Reason**: [Why this task has no specification basis]
+**Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}, Task {M}: {Task Name}**
+
+**Reason**: [Why this task has no specification basis]
 
 **Add a new phase** — a significant area of the specification has no plan coverage:
 
-> **Proposed fix — add new Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
->
-> [Phase goal, acceptance criteria, and task overview]
+**Proposed fix — add new Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
+
+[Phase goal, acceptance criteria, and task overview]
 
 **Remove a phase** — an entire phase is not backed by the specification:
 
-> **Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
->
-> **Reason**: [Why this phase has no specification basis]
+**Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
+
+**Reason**: [Why this phase has no specification basis]
 
 After presenting the finding and proposed fix, ask:
 
-> **Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
->
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> **To proceed:**
-> - **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll apply it to the plan verbatim.
-> - **`s`/`skip`** — Leave this as-is and move to the next finding.
-> - **Or tell me what to change.**
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
+
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**To proceed:**
+- **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll apply it to the plan verbatim.
+- **`s`/`skip`** — Leave this as-is and move to the next finding.
+- **Or tell me what to change.**
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 **STOP.** Wait for the user's response.
 
@@ -197,13 +199,13 @@ Apply the fix to the plan — as presented, using the output format adapter to d
 
 Confirm:
 
-> "Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — fixed."
+"Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — fixed."
 
 ### If Skipped
 
 Update the tracking file: mark resolution as "Skipped", note the reason.
 
-> "Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — skipped."
+"Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — skipped."
 
 ### Next Finding
 

package/skills/technical-planning/references/steps/review-traceability.md

@@ -65,15 +65,15 @@ After completing your review:
 
 **Stage 1: Summary**
 
-> "I've completed the traceability review comparing the plan against the specification. I found [N] items:
->
-> 1. **[Brief title]** (Missing from plan | Hallucinated | Incomplete)
->    [2-4 line explanation: what's wrong, where in the spec/plan, why it matters]
->
-> 2. **[Brief title]** (Missing from plan | Hallucinated | Incomplete)
->    [2-4 line explanation]
->
-> Let's work through these one at a time, starting with #1."
+"I've completed the traceability review comparing the plan against the specification. I found [N] items:
+
+1. **[Brief title]** (Missing from plan | Hallucinated | Incomplete)
+   [2-4 line explanation: what's wrong, where in the spec/plan, why it matters]
+
+2. **[Brief title]** (Missing from plan | Hallucinated | Incomplete)
+   [2-4 line explanation]
+
+Let's work through these one at a time, starting with #1."
 
 **Stage 2: Process One Item at a Time**
 
@@ -83,15 +83,15 @@ Work through each finding **one at a time**. For each finding: present it, propo
 
 Show the finding with full detail:
 
-> **Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
->
-> **Type**: Missing from plan | Hallucinated content | Incomplete coverage
->
-> **Spec Reference**: [Section/decision in the specification]
->
-> **Plan Reference**: [Phase/task in the plan, or "N/A" for missing content]
->
-> **Details**: [What's wrong and why it matters]
+**Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
+
+**Type**: Missing from plan | Hallucinated content | Incomplete coverage
+
+**Spec Reference**: [Section/decision in the specification]
+
+**Plan Reference**: [Phase/task in the plan, or "N/A" for missing content]
+
+**Details**: [What's wrong and why it matters]
 
 ### Propose the Fix
 
@@ -101,62 +101,64 @@ State the action type explicitly so the user knows what's changing structurally:
 
 **Update a task** — change content within an existing task:
 
-> **Proposed fix — update Phase {N}, Task {M}:**
->
-> **Current:**
-> [The existing content as it appears in the plan]
->
-> **Proposed:**
-> [The replacement content]
+**Proposed fix — update Phase {N}, Task {M}:**
+
+**Current:**
+[The existing content as it appears in the plan]
+
+**Proposed:**
+[The replacement content]
 
 **Add content to a task** — insert into an existing task (e.g., missing acceptance criteria, edge case):
 
-> **Proposed fix — add to Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
->
-> [The exact content to be added, in plan format]
+**Proposed fix — add to Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
+
+[The exact content to be added, in plan format]
 
 **Remove content from a task** — strip content that shouldn't be there:
 
-> **Proposed fix — remove from Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
->
-> [The exact content to be removed]
+**Proposed fix — remove from Phase {N}, Task {M}, {section}:**
+
+[The exact content to be removed]
 
 **Add a new task** — a spec section has no plan coverage and needs its own task:
 
-> **Proposed fix — add new task to Phase {N}:**
->
-> [The complete task in plan format, using the task template]
+**Proposed fix — add new task to Phase {N}:**
+
+[The complete task in plan format, using the task template]
 
 **Remove a task** — an entire task is hallucinated with no spec backing:
 
-> **Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}, Task {M}: {Task Name}**
->
-> **Reason**: [Why this task has no specification basis]
+**Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}, Task {M}: {Task Name}**
+
+**Reason**: [Why this task has no specification basis]
 
 **Add a new phase** — a significant area of the specification has no plan coverage:
 
-> **Proposed fix — add new Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
->
-> [Phase goal, acceptance criteria, and task overview]
+**Proposed fix — add new Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
+
+[Phase goal, acceptance criteria, and task overview]
 
 **Remove a phase** — an entire phase is not backed by the specification:
 
-> **Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
->
-> **Reason**: [Why this phase has no specification basis]
+**Proposed fix — remove Phase {N}: {Phase Name}**
+
+**Reason**: [Why this phase has no specification basis]
 
 After presenting the finding and proposed fix, ask:
 
-> **Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
->
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> **To proceed:**
-> - **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll apply it to the plan verbatim.
-> - **`s`/`skip`** — Leave this as-is and move to the next finding.
-> - **Or tell me what to change.**
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title}**
+
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+**To proceed:**
+- **`y`/`yes`** — Approved. I'll apply it to the plan verbatim.
+- **`s`/`skip`** — Leave this as-is and move to the next finding.
+- **Or tell me what to change.**
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 **STOP.** Wait for the user's response.
 
@@ -175,13 +177,13 @@ Apply the fix to the plan — as presented, using the output format adapter to d
 
 Confirm:
 
-> "Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — fixed."
+"Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — fixed."
 
 ### If Skipped
 
 Update the tracking file: mark resolution as "Skipped", note the reason.
 
-> "Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — skipped."
+"Finding {N} of {total}: {Brief Title} — skipped."
 
 ### Next Finding
 

package/skills/technical-research/SKILL.md

@@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ Either way: Explore feasibility (technical, business, market), validate assumpti
 **Before proceeding**, confirm the required input is clear. If anything is missing or unclear, **STOP** and resolve with the user.
 
 - **No topic provided?**
-  > "What would you like to research or explore? This could be a new idea, a technical concept, a market opportunity — anything you want to investigate."
+  "What would you like to research or explore? This could be a new idea, a technical concept, a market opportunity — anything you want to investigate."
 
 - **Topic is vague or could go many directions?**
-  > "You mentioned {topic}. That could cover a lot of ground — is there a specific angle you'd like to start with, or should I explore broadly?"
+  "You mentioned {topic}. That could cover a lot of ground — is there a specific angle you'd like to start with, or should I explore broadly?"
 
 ---
 
@@ -85,15 +85,17 @@ Watch for these signs that a thread is moving from exploration toward decision-m
 
 When you notice convergence, **flag it and give the user options**:
 
-> This thread seems to be converging — we've explored {topic} enough that the tradeoffs are clear and it's approaching decision territory.
->
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-> - **`p`/`park`** — Mark as discussion-ready and move to another topic
-> - **`k`/`keep`** — Keep digging, there's more to understand
-> - Comment — your call
-> · · · · · · · · · · · ·
+This thread seems to be converging — we've explored {topic} enough that the tradeoffs are clear and it's approaching decision territory.
 
-**Do not wrap the above in a code block** — output as raw markdown so bold styling renders.
+> *Output the next fenced block as markdown (not a code block):*
+
+```
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+- **`p`/`park`** — Mark as discussion-ready and move to another topic
+- **`k`/`keep`** — Keep digging, there's more to understand
+- Comment — your call
+· · · · · · · · · · · ·
+```
 
 **Never decide for the user.** Even if the answer seems obvious, flag it and ask.