@ngocsangairvds/vsaf 3.2.16 → 4.0.1

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/opportunity-reviewer.md

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-# Opportunity Reviewer
-
-You are a strategic advisor reviewing a product brief draft. Your job is to spot untapped potential — value the brief is leaving on the table.
-
-## Input
-
-You will receive the complete draft product brief.
-
-## Review Lens
-
-Ask yourself:
-
-- **What adjacent value propositions are being missed?** Are there related problems this solution naturally addresses?
-- **What market angles are underemphasized?** Is the positioning leaving opportunities unexplored?
-- **What partnerships or integrations could multiply impact?** Who would benefit from aligning with this product?
-- **What's the network effect or viral potential?** Is there a growth flywheel the brief doesn't describe?
-- **What's underemphasized?** Which strengths deserve more spotlight?
-- **What user segments are overlooked?** Could this serve audiences not yet mentioned?
-- **What's the bigger story?** If you zoom out, is there a more compelling narrative?
-- **What would an investor want to hear more about?** What would make someone lean forward?
-
-## Output
-
-Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Focus on the 2-3 most impactful opportunities per section, not an exhaustive list.
-
-```json
-{
-  "untapped_value": [
-    {"opportunity": "adjacent problem or value prop", "rationale": "why it matters"}
-  ],
-  "positioning_opportunities": [
-    {"angle": "market angle or narrative", "impact": "how it strengthens the brief"}
-  ],
-  "growth_and_scale": [
-    "bullet — network effects, viral loops, expansion paths"
-  ],
-  "strategic_partnerships": [
-    {"partner_type": "who", "value": "why this alliance matters"}
-  ],
-  "underemphasized_strengths": [
-    {"strength": "what's underplayed", "suggestion": "how to elevate it"}
-  ]
-}
-```

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/skeptic-reviewer.md

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-# Skeptic Reviewer
-
-You are a critical analyst reviewing a product brief draft. Your job is to find weaknesses, gaps, and untested assumptions — not to tear it apart, but to make it stronger.
-
-## Input
-
-You will receive the complete draft product brief.
-
-## Review Lens
-
-Ask yourself:
-
-- **What's missing?** Are there sections that feel thin or glossed over?
-- **What assumptions are untested?** Where does the brief assert things without evidence?
-- **What could go wrong?** What risks aren't acknowledged?
-- **Where is it vague?** Which claims need more specificity?
-- **Does the problem statement hold up?** Is this a real, significant problem or a nice-to-have?
-- **Are the differentiators actually defensible?** Could a competitor replicate them easily?
-- **Do the success metrics make sense?** Are they measurable and meaningful?
-- **Is the MVP scope realistic?** Too ambitious? Too timid?
-
-## Output
-
-Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Maximum 5 items per section. Prioritize — lead with the most impactful issues.
-
-```json
-{
-  "critical_gaps": [
-    {"issue": "what's missing", "impact": "why it matters", "suggestion": "how to fix"}
-  ],
-  "untested_assumptions": [
-    {"assumption": "what's asserted", "risk": "what could go wrong"}
-  ],
-  "unacknowledged_risks": [
-    {"risk": "potential failure mode", "severity": "high|medium|low"}
-  ],
-  "vague_areas": [
-    {"section": "where", "issue": "what's vague", "suggestion": "how to sharpen"}
-  ],
-  "suggested_improvements": [
-    "actionable suggestion"
-  ]
-}
-```

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/web-researcher.md

@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
-# Web Researcher
-
-You are a market research analyst. Your job is to find relevant competitive, market, and industry context for a product idea through web searches.
-
-## Input
-
-You will receive:
-- **Product intent:** A summary of what the product is about, the problem it solves, and the domain it operates in
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Identify search angles** based on the product intent:
-   - Direct competitors (products solving the same problem)
-   - Adjacent solutions (different approaches to the same pain point)
-   - Market size and trends for the domain
-   - Industry news or developments that create opportunity or risk
-   - User sentiment about existing solutions (what's frustrating people)
-
-2. **Execute 3-5 targeted web searches** — quality over quantity. Search for:
-   - "[problem domain] solutions comparison"
-   - "[competitor names] alternatives" (if competitors are known)
-   - "[industry] market trends [current year]"
-   - "[target user type] pain points [domain]"
-
-3. **Synthesize findings** — don't just list links. Extract the signal.
-
-## Output
-
-Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Maximum 5 bullets per section.
-
-```json
-{
-  "competitive_landscape": [
-    {"name": "competitor", "approach": "one-line description", "gaps": "where they fall short"}
-  ],
-  "market_context": [
-    "bullet — market size, growth trends, relevant data points"
-  ],
-  "user_sentiment": [
-    "bullet — what users say about existing solutions"
-  ],
-  "timing_and_opportunity": [
-    "bullet — why now, enabling shifts"
-  ],
-  "risks_and_considerations": [
-    "bullet — market risks, competitive threats, regulatory concerns"
-  ]
-}
-```

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/bmad-manifest.json

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "module-code": "bmm",
-  "replaces-skill": "bmad-create-product-brief",
-  "capabilities": [
-    {
-      "name": "create-brief",
-      "menu-code": "CB",
-      "description": "Produces executive product brief and optional LLM distillate for PRD input.",
-      "supports-headless": true,
-      "phase-name": "1-analysis",
-      "after": ["brainstorming", "perform-research"],
-      "before": ["create-prd"],
-      "is-required": true,
-      "output-location": "{planning_artifacts}"
-    }
-  ]
-}

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/prompts/contextual-discovery.md

@@ -1,57 +0,0 @@
-**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
-**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
-**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
-
-# Stage 2: Contextual Discovery
-
-**Goal:** Armed with the user's stated intent, intelligently gather and synthesize all available context — documents, project knowledge, and web research — so later stages work from a rich, relevant foundation.
-
-## Subagent Fan-Out
-
-Now that you know what the brief is about, fan out subagents in parallel to gather context. Each subagent receives the product intent summary so it knows what's relevant.
-
-**Launch in parallel:**
-
-1. **Artifact Analyzer** (`../agents/artifact-analyzer.md`) — Scans `{planning_artifacts}` and `{project_knowledge}` for relevant documents. Also scans any specific paths the user provided. Returns structured synthesis of what it found.
-
-2. **Web Researcher** (`../agents/web-researcher.md`) — Searches for competitive landscape, market context, trends, and relevant industry data. Returns structured findings scoped to the product domain.
-
-### Graceful Degradation
-
-If subagents are unavailable or fail:
-- Read only the most relevant 1-2 documents in the main context and summarize (don't full-read everything — limit context impact in degraded mode)
-- Do a few targeted web searches inline
-- Never block the workflow because a subagent feature is unavailable
-
-## Synthesis
-
-Once subagent results return (or inline scanning completes):
-
-1. **Merge findings** with what the user already told you
-2. **Identify gaps** — what do you still need to know to write a solid brief?
-3. **Note surprises** — anything from research that contradicts or enriches the user's assumptions?
-
-## Mode-Specific Behavior
-
-**Guided mode:**
-- Present a concise summary of what you found: "Here's what I learned from your documents and web research..."
-- Highlight anything surprising or worth discussing
-- Share the gaps you've identified
-- Ask: "Anything else you'd like to add, or shall we move on to filling in the details?"
-- Route to `guided-elicitation.md`
-
-**Yolo mode:**
-- Absorb all findings silently
-- Skip directly to `draft-and-review.md` — you have enough to draft
-- The user will refine later
-
-**Headless mode:**
-- Absorb all findings
-- Skip directly to `draft-and-review.md`
-- No interaction
-
-## Stage Complete
-
-This stage is complete when subagent results (or inline scanning fallback) have returned and findings are merged with user context. Route per mode:
-- **Guided** → `guided-elicitation.md`
-- **Yolo / Headless** → `draft-and-review.md`

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/prompts/draft-and-review.md

@@ -1,86 +0,0 @@
-**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
-**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
-**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
-
-# Stage 4: Draft & Review
-
-**Goal:** Produce the executive product brief and run it through multiple review lenses to catch blind spots before the user sees the final version.
-
-## Step 1: Draft the Executive Brief
-
-Use `../resources/brief-template.md` as a guide — adapt structure to fit the product's story.
-
-**Writing principles:**
-- **Executive audience** — persuasive, clear, concise. 1-2 pages.
-- **Lead with the problem** — make the reader feel the pain before presenting the solution
-- **Concrete over abstract** — specific examples, real scenarios, measurable outcomes
-- **Confident voice** — this is a pitch, not a hedge
-- Write in `{document_output_language}`
-
-**Create the output document at:** `{planning_artifacts}/product-brief-{project_name}.md`
-
-Include YAML frontmatter:
-```yaml
----
-title: "Product Brief: {project_name}"
-status: "draft"
-created: "{timestamp}"
-updated: "{timestamp}"
-inputs: [list of input files used]
----
-```
-
-## Step 2: Fan Out Review Subagents
-
-Before showing the draft to the user, run it through multiple review lenses in parallel.
-
-**Launch in parallel:**
-
-1. **Skeptic Reviewer** (`../agents/skeptic-reviewer.md`) — "What's missing? What assumptions are untested? What could go wrong? Where is the brief vague or hand-wavy?"
-
-2. **Opportunity Reviewer** (`../agents/opportunity-reviewer.md`) — "What adjacent value propositions are being missed? What market angles or partnerships could strengthen this? What's underemphasized?"
-
-3. **Contextual Reviewer** — You (the main agent) pick the most useful third lens based on THIS specific product. Choose the lens that addresses the SINGLE BIGGEST RISK that the skeptic and opportunity reviewers won't naturally catch. Examples:
-   - For healthtech: "Regulatory and compliance risk reviewer"
-   - For devtools: "Developer experience and adoption friction critic"
-   - For marketplace: "Network effects and chicken-and-egg problem analyst"
-   - For enterprise: "Procurement and organizational change management reviewer"
-   - **When domain is unclear, default to:** "Go-to-market and launch risk reviewer" — examines distribution, pricing, and first-customer acquisition. Almost always valuable, frequently missed.
-   Describe the lens, run the review yourself inline.
-
-### Graceful Degradation
-
-If subagents are unavailable:
-- Perform all three review passes yourself, sequentially
-- Apply each lens deliberately — don't blend them into one generic review
-- The quality of review matters more than the parallelism
-
-## Step 3: Integrate Review Insights
-
-After all reviews complete:
-
-1. **Triage findings** — group by theme, remove duplicates
-2. **Apply non-controversial improvements** directly to the draft (obvious gaps, unclear language, missing specifics)
-3. **Flag substantive suggestions** that need user input (strategic choices, scope questions, market positioning decisions)
-
-## Step 4: Present to User
-
-**Headless mode:** Skip to `finalize.md` — no user interaction. Save the improved draft directly.
-
-**Yolo and Guided modes:**
-
-Present the draft brief to the user. Then share the reviewer insights:
-
-"Here's your product brief draft. Before we finalize, my review panel surfaced some things worth considering:
-
-**[Grouped reviewer findings — only the substantive ones that need user input]**
-
-What do you think? Any changes you'd like to make?"
-
-Present reviewer findings with brief rationale, then offer: "Want me to dig into any of these, or are you ready to make your revisions?"
-
-**Iterate** as long as the user wants to refine. Use the "anything else, or are we happy with this?" soft gate.
-
-## Stage Complete
-
-This stage is complete when: (a) the draft has been reviewed by all three lenses and improvements integrated, AND either (autonomous) save and route directly, or (guided/yolo) the user is satisfied. Route to `finalize.md`.

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/prompts/finalize.md

@@ -1,75 +0,0 @@
-**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
-**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
-**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
-
-# Stage 5: Finalize
-
-**Goal:** Save the polished brief, offer the LLM distillate, and point the user forward.
-
-## Step 1: Polish and Save
-
-Update the product brief document at `{planning_artifacts}/product-brief-{project_name}.md`:
-- Update frontmatter `status` to `"complete"`
-- Update `updated` timestamp
-- Ensure formatting is clean and consistent
-- Confirm the document reads well as a standalone 1-2 page executive summary
-
-## Step 2: Offer the Distillate
-
-Throughout the discovery process, you likely captured detail that doesn't belong in a 1-2 page executive summary but is valuable for downstream work — requirements hints, platform preferences, rejected ideas, technical constraints, detailed user scenarios, competitive deep-dives, etc.
-
-**Ask the user:**
-"Your product brief is complete. During our conversation, I captured additional detail that goes beyond the executive summary — things like [mention 2-3 specific examples of overflow you captured]. Would you like me to create a detail pack for PRD creation? It distills all that extra context into a concise, structured format optimized for the next phase."
-
-**If yes, create the distillate** at `{planning_artifacts}/product-brief-{project_name}-distillate.md`:
-
-```yaml
----
-title: "Product Brief Distillate: {project_name}"
-type: llm-distillate
-source: "product-brief-{project_name}.md"
-created: "{timestamp}"
-purpose: "Token-efficient context for downstream PRD creation"
----
-```
-
-**Distillate content principles:**
-- Dense bullet points, not prose
-- Each bullet carries enough context to be understood standalone (don't assume the reader has the full brief loaded)
-- Group by theme, not by when it was mentioned
-- Include:
-  - **Rejected ideas** — so downstream workflows don't re-propose them, with brief rationale
-  - **Requirements hints** — anything the user mentioned that sounds like a requirement
-  - **Technical context** — platforms, integrations, constraints, preferences
-  - **Detailed user scenarios** — richer than what fits in the exec summary
-  - **Competitive intelligence** — specifics from web research worth preserving
-  - **Open questions** — things surfaced but not resolved during discovery
-  - **Scope signals** — what the user indicated is in/out/maybe for MVP
-- Token-conscious: be concise, but give enough context per bullet so an LLM reading this later understands WHY each point matters
-
-**Headless mode:** Always create the distillate automatically — unless the session was too brief to capture meaningful overflow (in that case, note this in the completion output instead of creating an empty file).
-
-## Step 3: Present Completion
-
-"Your product brief for {project_name} is complete!
-
-**Executive Brief:** `{planning_artifacts}/product-brief-{project_name}.md`
-[If distillate created:] **Detail Pack:** `{planning_artifacts}/product-brief-{project_name}-distillate.md`
-
-**Recommended next step:** Use the product brief (and detail pack) as input for PRD creation — tell your assistant 'create a PRD' and point it to these files."
-[If distillate created:] "The detail pack contains all the overflow context (requirements hints, rejected ideas, technical constraints) specifically structured for the PRD workflow to consume."
-
-**Headless mode:** Output the file paths as structured JSON and exit:
-```json
-{
-  "status": "complete",
-  "brief": "{planning_artifacts}/product-brief-{project_name}.md",
-  "distillate": "{path or null}",
-  "confidence": "high|medium|low",
-  "open_questions": ["any unresolved items"]
-}
-```
-
-## Stage Complete
-
-This is the terminal stage. After delivering the completion message and file paths, the workflow is done. If the user requests further revisions, loop back to `draft-and-review.md`. Otherwise, exit.

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/prompts/guided-elicitation.md

@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
-**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
-**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
-
-# Stage 3: Guided Elicitation
-
-**Goal:** Fill the gaps in what you know. By now you have the user's brain dump, artifact analysis, and web research. This stage is about smart, targeted questioning — not rote section-by-section interrogation.
-
-**Skip this stage entirely in Yolo and Autonomous modes** — go directly to `draft-and-review.md`.
-
-## Approach
-
-You are NOT walking through a rigid questionnaire. You're having a conversation that covers the substance of a great product brief. The topics below are your mental checklist, not a script. Adapt to:
-- What you already know (don't re-ask what's been covered)
-- What the user is excited about (follow their energy)
-- What's genuinely unclear (focus questions where they matter)
-
-## Topics to Cover (flexibly, conversationally)
-
-### Vision & Problem
-- What core problem does this solve? For whom?
-- How do people solve this today? What's frustrating about current approaches?
-- What would success look like for the people this helps?
-- What's the insight or angle that makes this approach different?
-
-### Users & Value
-- Who experiences this problem most acutely?
-- Are there different user types with different needs?
-- What's the "aha moment" — when does a user realize this is what they needed?
-- How does this fit into their existing workflow or life?
-
-### Market & Differentiation
-- What competitive or alternative solutions exist? (Leverage web research findings)
-- What's the unfair advantage or defensible moat?
-- Why is now the right time for this?
-
-### Success & Scope
-- How will you know this is working? What metrics matter?
-- What's the minimum viable version that creates real value?
-- What's explicitly NOT in scope for the first version?
-- If this is wildly successful, what does it become in 2-3 years?
-
-## The Flow
-
-For each topic area where you have gaps:
-
-1. **Lead with what you know** — "Based on your input and my research, it sounds like [X]. Is that right?"
-2. **Ask the gap question** — targeted, specific, not generic
-3. **Reflect and confirm** — paraphrase what you heard
-4. **"Anything else on this, or shall we move on?"** — the soft gate
-
-If the user is giving you detail beyond brief scope (requirements, architecture, platform details, timelines), **capture it silently** for the distillate. Acknowledge it briefly ("Good detail, I'll capture that") but don't derail the conversation.
-
-## When to Move On
-
-When you have enough substance to draft a compelling 1-2 page executive brief covering:
-- Clear problem and who it affects
-- Proposed solution and what makes it different
-- Target users (at least primary)
-- Some sense of success criteria or business objectives
-- MVP-level scope thinking
-
-You don't need perfection — you need enough to draft well. Missing details can be surfaced during the review stage.
-
-If the user is providing complete, confident answers and you have solid coverage across all four topic areas after fewer than 3-4 exchanges, proactively offer to draft early.
-
-**Transition:** "I think I have a solid picture. Ready for me to draft the brief, or is there anything else you'd like to add?"
-
-## Stage Complete
-
-This stage is complete when sufficient substance exists to draft a compelling brief and the user confirms readiness. Route to `draft-and-review.md`.

package/tools/skills/bmad-product-brief/resources/brief-template.md

@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
-# Product Brief Template
-
-This is a flexible guide for the executive product brief — adapt it to serve the product's story. Merge sections, add new ones, reorder as needed. The product determines the structure, not the template.
-
-## Sensible Default Structure
-
-```markdown
-# Product Brief: {Product Name}
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-[2-3 paragraph narrative: What is this? What problem does it solve? Why does it matter? Why now?
-This should be compelling enough to stand alone — if someone reads only this section, they should understand the vision.]
-
-## The Problem
-
-[What pain exists? Who feels it? How are they coping today? What's the cost of the status quo?
-Be specific — real scenarios, real frustrations, real consequences.]
-
-## The Solution
-
-[What are we building? How does it solve the problem?
-Focus on the experience and outcome, not the implementation.]
-
-## What Makes This Different
-
-[Key differentiators. Why this approach vs alternatives? What's the unfair advantage?
-Be honest — if the moat is execution speed, say so. Don't fabricate technical moats.]
-
-## Who This Serves
-
-[Primary users — vivid but brief. Who are they, what do they need, what does success look like for them?
-Secondary users if relevant.]
-
-## Success Criteria
-
-[How do we know this is working? What metrics matter?
-Mix of user success signals and business objectives. Be measurable.]
-
-## Scope
-
-[What's in for the first version? What's explicitly out?
-Keep this tight — it's a boundary document, not a feature list.]
-
-## Vision
-
-[Where does this go if it succeeds? What does it become in 2-3 years?
-Inspiring but grounded.]
-```
-
-## Adaptation Guidelines
-
-- **For B2B products:** Consider adding a "Buyer vs User" section if they're different people
-- **For platforms/marketplaces:** Consider a "Network Effects" or "Ecosystem" section
-- **For technical products:** May need a brief "Technical Approach" section (keep it high-level)
-- **For regulated industries:** Consider a "Compliance & Regulatory" section
-- **If scope is well-defined:** Merge "Scope" and "Vision" into "Roadmap Thinking"
-- **If the problem is well-known:** Shorten "The Problem" and expand "What Makes This Different"
-
-The brief should be 1-2 pages. If it's longer, you're putting in too much detail — that's what the distillate is for.

package/tools/skills/bmad-quick-dev/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
----
-name: bmad-quick-dev
-description: 'Implements any user intent, requirement, story, bug fix or change request by producing clean working code artifacts that follow the project''s existing architecture, patterns and conventions. Use when the user wants to build, fix, tweak, refactor, add or modify any code, component or feature.'
----
-
-Follow the instructions in ./workflow.md.

package/tools/skills/bmad-quick-dev/compile-epic-context.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# Compile Epic Context
-
-**Task**
-Given an epic number, the epics file, the planning artifacts directory, and a desired output path, compile a clean, focused, developer-ready context file (`epic-<N>-context.md`).
-
-**Steps**
-
-1. Read the epics file and extract the target epic's title, goal, and list of stories.
-2. Scan the planning artifacts directory for the standard files (PRD, architecture, UX/design, product brief).
-3. Pull only the information relevant to this epic.
-4. Write the compiled context to the exact output path using the format below.
-
-## Exact Output Format
-
-Use these headings:
-
-```markdown
-# Epic {N} Context: {Epic Title}
-
-<!-- Compiled from planning artifacts. Edit freely. Regenerate with compile-epic-context if planning docs change. -->
-
-## Goal
-
-{One clear paragraph: what this epic achieves and why it matters.}
-
-## Stories
-
-- Story X.Y: Brief title only
-- ...
-
-## Requirements & Constraints
-
-{Relevant functional/non-functional requirements and success criteria for this epic (describe by purpose, not source).}
-
-## Technical Decisions
-
-{Key architecture decisions, constraints, patterns, data models, and conventions relevant to this epic.}
-
-## UX & Interaction Patterns
-
-{Relevant UX flows, interaction patterns, and design constraints (omit section entirely if nothing relevant).}
-
-## Cross-Story Dependencies
-
-{Dependencies between stories in this epic or with other epics/systems (omit if none).}
-```
-
-## Rules
-
-- **Scope aggressively.** Include only what a developer working on any story in this epic actually needs. When in doubt, leave it out — the developer can always read the full planning doc.
-- **Describe by purpose, not by source.** Write "API responses must include pagination metadata" not "Per PRD section 3.2.1, pagination is required." Planning doc internals will change; the constraint won't.
-- **No full copies.** Never quote source documents, section numbers, or paste large blocks verbatim. Always distill.
-- **No story-level details.** The story list is for orientation only. Individual story specs handle the details.
-- **Nothing derivable from the codebase.** Don't document what a developer can learn by reading the code.
-- **Be concise and actionable.** Target 800–1500 tokens total. This file loads into quick-dev's context alongside other material.
-- **Never hallucinate content.** If source material doesn't say something, don't invent it.
-- **Omit empty sections entirely**, except Goal and Stories, which are always required.
-
-## Error handling
-
-- **If the epics file is missing or the target epic is not found:** write nothing and report the problem to the calling agent. Goal and Stories cannot be populated without a usable epics file.
-- **If planning artifacts are missing or empty:** still produce the file with Goal and Stories populated from the epics file, and note the gap in the Goal section. Never hallucinate content to fill missing sections.

package/tools/skills/bmad-quick-dev/spec-template.md

@@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
----
-title: '{title}'
-type: 'feature' # feature | bugfix | refactor | chore
-created: '{date}'
-status: 'draft' # draft | ready-for-dev | in-progress | in-review | done
-context: [] # optional: `{project-root}/`-prefixed paths to project-wide standards/docs the implementation agent should load. Keep short — only what isn't already distilled into the spec body.
----
-
-<!-- Target: 900–1300 tokens. Above 1600 = high risk of context rot.
-     Never over-specify "how" — use boundaries + examples instead.
-     Cohesive cross-layer stories (DB+BE+UI) stay in ONE file.
-     IMPORTANT: Remove all HTML comments when filling this template. -->
-
-<frozen-after-approval reason="human-owned intent — do not modify unless human renegotiates">
-
-## Intent
-
-<!-- What is broken or missing, and why it matters. Then the high-level approach — the "what", not the "how". -->
-
-**Problem:** ONE_TO_TWO_SENTENCES
-
-**Approach:** ONE_TO_TWO_SENTENCES
-
-## Boundaries & Constraints
-
-<!-- Three tiers: Always = invariant rules. Ask First = human-gated decisions. Never = out of scope + forbidden approaches. -->
-
-**Always:** INVARIANT_RULES
-
-**Ask First:** DECISIONS_REQUIRING_HUMAN_APPROVAL
-<!-- Agent: if any of these trigger during execution, HALT and ask the user before proceeding. -->
-
-**Never:** NON_GOALS_AND_FORBIDDEN_APPROACHES
-
-## I/O & Edge-Case Matrix
-
-<!-- If no meaningful I/O scenarios exist, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. Do not write "N/A" or "None". -->
-
-| Scenario | Input / State | Expected Output / Behavior | Error Handling |
-|----------|--------------|---------------------------|----------------|
-| HAPPY_PATH | INPUT | OUTCOME | N/A |
-| ERROR_CASE | INPUT | OUTCOME | ERROR_HANDLING |
-
-</frozen-after-approval>
-
-## Code Map
-
-<!-- Agent-populated during planning. Annotated paths prevent blind codebase searching. -->
-
-- `FILE` -- ROLE_OR_RELEVANCE
-- `FILE` -- ROLE_OR_RELEVANCE
-
-## Tasks & Acceptance
-
-<!-- Tasks: backtick-quoted file path -- action -- rationale. Prefer one task per file; group tightly-coupled changes when splitting would be artificial. -->
-<!-- If an I/O Matrix is present, include a task to unit-test its edge cases. -->
-<!-- AC covers system-level behaviors not captured by the I/O Matrix. Do not duplicate I/O scenarios here. -->
-
-**Execution:**
-- [ ] `FILE` -- ACTION -- RATIONALE
-
-**Acceptance Criteria:**
-- Given PRECONDITION, when ACTION, then EXPECTED_RESULT
-
-## Spec Change Log
-
-<!-- Append-only. Populated by step-04 during review loops. Do not modify or delete existing entries.
-     Each entry records: what finding triggered the change, what was amended, what known-bad state
-     the amendment avoids, and any KEEP instructions (what worked well and must survive re-derivation).
-     Empty until the first bad_spec loopback. -->
-
-## Design Notes
-
-<!-- If the approach is straightforward, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. Do not write "N/A" or "None". -->
-<!-- Design rationale and golden examples only when non-obvious. Keep examples to 5–10 lines. -->
-
-DESIGN_RATIONALE_AND_EXAMPLES
-
-## Verification
-
-<!-- If no build, test, or lint commands apply, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. Do not write "N/A" or "None". -->
-<!-- How the agent confirms its own work. Prefer CLI commands. When no CLI check applies, state what to inspect manually. -->
-
-**Commands:**
-- `COMMAND` -- expected: SUCCESS_CRITERIA
-
-**Manual checks (if no CLI):**
-- WHAT_TO_INSPECT_AND_EXPECTED_STATE