@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.2 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/spec-driven-workflow/references/bounded_autonomy_rules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+# Bounded Autonomy Rules
+
+Decision framework for when an agent (human or AI) should stop and ask vs. continue working autonomously during spec-driven development.
+
+---
+
+## The Core Principle
+
+**Autonomy is earned by clarity.** The clearer the spec, the more autonomy the implementer has. The more ambiguous the spec, the more the implementer must stop and ask.
+
+This is not about trust. It is about risk. A clear spec means low risk of building the wrong thing. An ambiguous spec means high risk.
+
+---
+
+## Decision Matrix
+
+| Signal | Action | Rationale |
+|--------|--------|-----------|
+| Spec is Approved, requirement is clear, tests exist | **Continue** | Low risk. Build it. |
+| Requirement is clear but no test exists yet | **Continue** (write the test first) | You can infer the test from the requirement. |
+| Requirement uses SHOULD/MAY keywords | **Continue** with your best judgment | These are intentionally flexible. Document your choice. |
+| Requirement is ambiguous (multiple valid interpretations) | **STOP** if ambiguity > 30% of the task | Ask the spec author to clarify. |
+| Implementation requires changing an API contract | **STOP** always | Breaking changes need explicit approval. |
+| Implementation requires a new database migration | **STOP** if it changes existing columns/tables | New tables are lower risk than schema changes. |
+| Security-related change (auth, crypto, PII) | **STOP** always | Security changes need review regardless of spec clarity. |
+| Performance-critical path with no benchmark data | **STOP** | You cannot prove NFR compliance without measurement. |
+| Bug found in existing code unrelated to spec | **STOP** — file a separate issue | Do not fix unrelated bugs in a spec-scoped implementation. |
+| Spec says "N/A" for a section you think needs content | **STOP** | The author may have a reason, or they may have missed it. |
+
+---
+
+## Ambiguity Scoring
+
+When you encounter ambiguity, quantify it before deciding to stop or continue.
+
+### How to Score Ambiguity
+
+For each requirement you are implementing, ask:
+
+1. **Can I write a test for this right now?** (No = +20% ambiguity)
+2. **Are there multiple valid interpretations?** (Yes = +20% ambiguity)
+3. **Does the spec contradict itself?** (Yes = +30% ambiguity)
+4. **Am I making assumptions about user behavior?** (Yes = +15% ambiguity)
+5. **Does this depend on an undocumented external system?** (Yes = +15% ambiguity)
+
+### Threshold
+
+| Ambiguity Score | Action |
+|-----------------|--------|
+| 0-15% | Continue. Minor ambiguity is normal. Document your interpretation. |
+| 16-30% | Continue with caution. Add a comment explaining your interpretation. Flag in PR. |
+| 31-50% | STOP. Ask the spec author one specific question. Do not continue until answered. |
+| 51%+ | STOP. The spec is incomplete. Request a revision before proceeding. |
+
+### Example
+
+**Requirement:** "FR-7: The system MUST notify the user when their order ships."
+
+Questions:
+1. Can I write a test? Partially — I know WHAT to test but not HOW (email? push? in-app?). +20%
+2. Multiple interpretations? Yes — notification channel is unclear. +20%
+3. Contradicts itself? No. +0%
+4. Assuming user behavior? Yes — I am assuming they want email. +15%
+5. Undocumented external system? Maybe — depends on notification service. +15%
+
+**Total: 70%.** STOP. The spec needs to specify the notification channel.
+
+---
+
+## Scope Creep Detection
+
+### What Is Scope Creep?
+
+Scope creep is implementing functionality not described in the spec. It includes:
+
+- Adding features the spec does not mention
+- "Improving" behavior beyond what acceptance criteria require
+- Handling edge cases the spec explicitly excluded
+- Refactoring unrelated code "while you're in there"
+- Building infrastructure for future features
+
+### Detection Patterns
+
+| Pattern | Example | Risk |
+|---------|---------|------|
+| "While I'm here..." | Refactoring a utility function unrelated to the spec | Medium — unreviewed changes |
+| "This would be easy to add..." | Adding a search filter the spec does not mention | High — untested, unspecified |
+| "Users will probably want..." | Building a feature based on assumption | High — may conflict with future specs |
+| "This is obviously needed..." | Adding logging, metrics, or caching not in NFRs | Medium — may be overkill or wrong approach |
+| "The spec forgot to mention..." | Building something the spec excluded | Critical — may be deliberately excluded |
+
+### Response Protocol
+
+When you detect scope creep in your own work:
+
+1. **Stop immediately.** Do not commit the extra code.
+2. **Check Out of Scope.** Is this item explicitly excluded?
+3. **If excluded:** Delete the code. The spec author had a reason.
+4. **If not mentioned:** File a note for the spec author. Ask if it should be added.
+5. **If approved:** Update the spec FIRST, then implement.
+
+---
+
+## Breaking Change Identification
+
+### What Counts as a Breaking Change?
+
+A breaking change is any modification that could cause existing clients, tests, or integrations to fail.
+
+| Category | Breaking | Not Breaking |
+|----------|----------|--------------|
+| API endpoint removed | Yes | - |
+| API endpoint added | - | No |
+| Required field added to request | Yes | - |
+| Optional field added to request | - | No |
+| Field removed from response | Yes | - |
+| Field added to response | - | No (usually) |
+| Status code changed | Yes | - |
+| Error code string changed | Yes | - |
+| Database column removed | Yes | - |
+| Database column added (nullable) | - | No |
+| Database column added (not null, no default) | Yes | - |
+| Enum value removed | Yes | - |
+| Enum value added | - | No (usually) |
+| Behavior change for existing input | Yes | - |
+
+### Breaking Change Protocol
+
+1. **Identify** the breaking change before implementing it.
+2. **Escalate** immediately — do not implement without approval.
+3. **Propose** a migration path (versioned API, feature flag, deprecation period).
+4. **Document** the breaking change in the spec's changelog.
+
+---
+
+## Security Implication Checklist
+
+Any change touching the following areas MUST be escalated, even if the spec seems clear.
+
+### Always Escalate
+
+- [ ] Authentication logic (login, logout, token generation)
+- [ ] Authorization logic (role checks, permission gates)
+- [ ] Encryption/hashing (algorithm choice, key management)
+- [ ] PII handling (storage, transmission, logging)
+- [ ] Input validation bypass (new endpoints, parameter changes)
+- [ ] Rate limiting changes (thresholds, scope)
+- [ ] CORS or CSP policy changes
+- [ ] File upload handling
+- [ ] SQL/NoSQL query construction (injection risk)
+- [ ] Deserialization of user input
+- [ ] Redirect URLs from user input (open redirect risk)
+- [ ] Secrets in code, config, or logs
+
+### Security Escalation Template
+
+```markdown
+## Security Escalation: [Title]
+
+**Affected area:** [authentication/authorization/encryption/PII/etc.]
+**Spec reference:** [FR-N or NFR-SN]
+**Risk:** [What could go wrong if implemented incorrectly]
+**Current protection:** [What exists today]
+**Proposed change:** [What the spec requires]
+**My concern:** [Specific security question]
+**Recommendation:** [Proposed approach with security rationale]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Escalation Templates
+
+### Template 1: Ambiguous Requirement
+
+```markdown
+## Escalation: Ambiguous Requirement
+
+**Blocked on:** FR-7 ("notify the user when their order ships")
+**Ambiguity score:** 70%
+**Question:** What notification channel should be used?
+**Options considered:**
+  A. Email only — Pros: simple, reliable. Cons: not real-time.
+  B. Email + in-app notification — Pros: covers both async and real-time. Cons: more implementation effort.
+  C. Configurable per user — Pros: maximum flexibility. Cons: requires preference UI (not in spec).
+**My recommendation:** B (email + in-app). Covers most use cases without requiring new UI.
+**Impact of waiting:** Cannot implement FR-7 until resolved. No other work blocked.
+```
+
+### Template 2: Missing Edge Case
+
+```markdown
+## Escalation: Missing Edge Case
+
+**Related to:** FR-3 (password reset link expires after 1 hour)
+**Scenario:** User clicks a reset link, but their account was deleted between requesting and clicking.
+**Not in spec:** Edge cases section does not cover this.
+**Options considered:**
+  A. Show generic "link invalid" error — Pros: secure (no info leak). Cons: confusing for deleted user.
+  B. Show "account not found" error — Pros: clear. Cons: confirms account deletion to link holder.
+**My recommendation:** A. Security over clarity — do not reveal account existence.
+**Impact of waiting:** Can implement other ACs; this is blocking only AC-2 completion.
+```
+
+### Template 3: Potential Breaking Change
+
+```markdown
+## Escalation: Potential Breaking Change
+
+**Spec requires:** Adding required field "role" to POST /api/users request (FR-6)
+**Current behavior:** POST /api/users accepts {email, password, displayName}
+**Breaking:** Yes — existing clients will get 400 errors (missing required field)
+**Options considered:**
+  A. Make "role" required as spec says — Pros: matches spec. Cons: breaks mobile app v2.1.
+  B. Make "role" optional with default "user" — Pros: backward compatible. Cons: deviates from spec.
+  C. Version the API (v2) — Pros: clean separation. Cons: maintenance burden.
+**My recommendation:** B. Default to "user" for backward compatibility. Update spec to reflect MAY instead of MUST.
+**Impact of waiting:** Frontend team is building against the new contract. Need answer within 2 days.
+```
+
+### Template 4: Scope Creep Proposal
+
+```markdown
+## Escalation: Potential Addition to Spec
+
+**Context:** While implementing FR-2 (password validation), I noticed the spec does not mention password strength feedback.
+**Not in spec:** No requirement for showing strength indicators.
+**Checked Out of Scope:** Not listed there either.
+**Proposal:** Add FR-7: "The system SHOULD display password strength feedback during registration."
+**Effort:** ~2 hours additional implementation.
+**Question:** Should this be added to current spec, filed as a separate spec, or skipped?
+**Impact of waiting:** FR-2 implementation is not blocked. This is an enhancement question only.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference Card
+
+```
+CONTINUE if:
+  - Spec is approved
+  - Requirement uses MUST and is unambiguous
+  - Tests can be written directly from the AC
+  - Changes are additive and non-breaking
+  - You are refactoring internals only (no behavior change)
+
+STOP if:
+  - Ambiguity > 30%
+  - Any breaking change
+  - Any security-related change
+  - Spec says N/A but you think it shouldn't
+  - You are about to build something not in the spec
+  - You cannot write a test for the requirement
+  - External dependency is undocumented
+```
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns in Autonomy
+
+### 1. "I'll Ask Later"
+Continuing past an ambiguity checkpoint because asking feels slow. The rework from building the wrong thing is always slower.
+
+### 2. "It's Obviously Needed"
+Assuming a missing feature was accidentally omitted. It may have been deliberately excluded. Check Out of Scope first.
+
+### 3. "The Spec Is Wrong"
+Implementing what you think the spec SHOULD say instead of what it DOES say. If the spec is wrong, escalate. Do not silently "fix" it.
+
+### 4. "Just This Once"
+Bypassing the escalation protocol for a "small" change. Small changes compound. The protocol exists because humans are bad at judging risk in the moment.
+
+### 5. "I Already Built It"
+Presenting completed work that was never in the spec and hoping it gets accepted. This creates review pressure and wastes everyone's time if rejected. Ask BEFORE building.