@quybt93/pcgf 0.0.1

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/review-prompts/verification-gap.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# Verification Gap Review
+
+**Goal:** Find changed behavior that could break without reliable verification catching it. Ask one question — "if the behavior this change is supposed to produce broke where it's actually used, would verification fail?" Do not hunt for correctness bugs, but report genuine problems you notice while tracing verification.
+
+The main verification gap shapes are:
+
+1. **Regression gap:** the changed code regresses where it's used, and no test covering that use would fail.
+2. **Missing-adoption gap:** a place that should now use the new behavior doesn't; it handles the same case its own way, or not at all, and no test would flag the omission.
+3. **Broken-verification gap:** a test appears to cover the changed behavior, but would not actually protect it because it is skipped, flaky, not run in the normal verification path, or too weak to observe the regression.
+
+## Evidence Rules
+
+- Read a test before claiming what it covers, runs, asserts, or misses.
+- Before claiming no test exists, search the whole repo by the symbol under test and by import references; expected file locations are not enough.
+- Never assert what you did not verify. If a finding cannot be grounded, drop it.
+- In a finding, say what you actually checked — "none of the tests I read cover this" — and show how far you looked. Say a test doesn't exist anywhere only when the symbol/import-reference search actually shows that.
+- Do not assign severity, confidence, priority, or ranking.
+
+## Review Sequence
+
+### Step 1: Screen for behavioral change
+
+Screen each part of the change separately. If a part is non-behavioral, skip it. Call a part non-behavioral only when the changed code does not alter return values, thrown errors, caller-visible side effects, or observable state (including iteration order and emitted messages). Once a part meets that test, move on; do not inspect callers or tests for extra confirmation.
+
+Common non-behavioral examples: formatting, comments, whitespace; pure renames; trivial getters/setters and pass-throughs; type-only or compiler-enforced changes with no runtime effect; etc.
+
+Only outcomes produced by deterministic code are worth automatically testing; tests are useless on static source text and brittle on LLM output. Skip those parts.
+
+If every part is skipped, output the clean result (see Output Format).
+
+### Step 2: Find the behavior that changed
+
+Identify what behavior changed compared to the previous version: output, side effect, branch, error path, schema/event shape, config default, validation/authorization rule, external contract, etc. If the change affects more than one behavior, handle each separately.
+
+Treat broad-impact changes as behavioral even when no single changed line looks important: dependency, toolchain, build/config, data-file, etc.
+
+### Step 3: Trace where that behavior is used
+
+Trace the changed behavior to the places that observe it. Start with direct callers and registered entry points (routes, commands, DI), contract consumers (schemas, events, APIs, database readers), and reverse-dependency info if already available.
+
+Follow a path only while the changed behavior is reachable and unverified. Stop when a test at that boundary would fail, the consumer does not observe the changed behavior, or the next hop is guesswork (dynamic dispatch, reflection, outside-repo consumers, etc.). Prefer the nearest observable boundary, often one to three hops away, especially across contract, integration, or service edges. If there are more than five similar consumers, group obvious repeats and check representative paths; expand only when a consumer observes the behavior differently.
+
+### Step 4: Qualify the consumer, then check its test
+
+For each consumer, name the smallest realistic regression this consumer would observe: invert the branch, drop the default, omit the field, return the old error code, skip the integration call, etc. This is the Demonstration. If no such regression exists, drop the path; untested downstream code is not a finding.
+
+A `Missing-adoption gap` qualifies not by the adoption failure alone but by a supersession signal: the change gives clear evidence the new behavior is meant to replace the local one — PR intent, naming or docs, a replaced sibling site, deleted duplicate logic, or a test defining the new rule — and the local site shares the same observable contract. Without a supersession signal and a shared observable contract, it is a refactor suggestion, not a verification-gap finding. Once both hold, check whether any test for that site would flag the non-adoption; missing coverage of the non-adoption is the gap itself, not a disqualifier.
+
+Find and read the relevant test. Ask whether the Demonstration would make an assertion fail.
+
+- If yes, the behavior is verified. No finding.
+- For a regression-style Demonstration: if no test runs the path, the test is skipped/flaky/not run normally, or the test runs the code without checking the changed result, report a `Regression gap` or `Broken-verification gap`.
+- For a qualifying Missing-adoption case: if none of the site tests you found assert it adopts the new behavior, report a `Missing-adoption gap`.
+
+A test counts only if it runs normally and an assertion observes the changed output, branch, or contract. These do not count: no execution; source-text assertions that match a file's wording instead of running it; success/no-throw/snapshot-only checks; mock/log-call checks; human-only checks; tests that mock away the integration; e2e tests that pass through without checking the changed output; stale assertions or fixtures.
+
+For example, `expect(x ?? DEFAULT).toBe(DEFAULT)` passes when `x` is missing.
+
+Common patterns:
+
+- **Caller-path gap** — helper test covers the branch, but caller values skip it.
+- **Contract drift** — payload/schema/event changes must be verified at the consumer.
+- **Migration compatibility** — tests only create new-format rows or fresh schemas.
+- **Phantom exception** — handled partial-failure path has no test.
+- **Missing-adoption gap** — sibling site should use the new rule/helper and does not.
+- **Removed verification** — deleted test or weakened assertion leaves behavior unpinned; removing a source-text assertion is not this, since it never counted.
+
+### Step 5: Confirm each finding is real
+
+Before writing a finding, re-open the specific tests or search results the finding relies on. Verify the Demonstration would not make any test you checked fail, or that the absence claim is backed by the symbol/import-reference search. Do not claim more than you verified; drop any finding you cannot ground.
+
+Explain why the test misses the bug using what the test sets up and checks.
+
+Do not report: compiler/type-checker-enforced cases; behavior already verified by an integration, contract, or e2e test; implementation-detail or mock-only tests; low coverage or a missing test file by itself; legacy untested code the change did not affect.
+
+Report genuine problems you noticed while tracing verification, even if they are not verification gaps. Put them under `Other findings` in the output. This permits reporting what you already reached, not extra hunting. A claim that code misbehaves is a defect, not a gap — it goes under `Other findings` for standard triage, however you found it.
+
+## OUTPUT FORMAT
+
+Emit each verification-gap finding as one block. No general advice, no severity or confidence. Triage trusts a gap finding as filed and does not re-verify it, so each block must stand on its own evidence.
+
+```markdown
+### <one-line title naming the gap>
+
+- **Changed surface:** the exact behavior or contract that changed — `file:line`.
+- **Impacted consumer or site:** named concretely with `file:line` (e.g. "the `createInvoice` mutation used by the billing dashboard at `billing/dashboard.ts:88`," not "callers of this function").
+- **Existing test evidence:**
+  - `Regression gap`: what the relevant test actually asserts, with `file:line`; or, if none, the symbol/import-reference searches run and their result.
+  - `Missing-adoption gap`: tests for the impacted site, and whether any assert it adopts the new behavior.
+  - `Broken-verification gap`: the apparent test or verification path, and why it does not count.
+- **Missing verification:** the precise assertion or check that's absent.
+- **Demonstration:**
+  - `Regression gap` / `Broken-verification gap`: the concrete regression that would ship undetected, and why the tests you checked would not fail.
+  - `Missing-adoption gap`: the case the site mishandles by not adopting the new behavior, and that none of the tests you read assert adoption.
+- **Consequence:** the concrete thing that ships wrong — a regression the checked evidence would not catch, or a site that should use the new behavior and doesn't.
+- **Disposition:** `patch` — name the test to add, fit to the repo's own way of verifying (don't impose a generic test pyramid) — or `defer` when the gap is real but not worth closing as part of this change, with one sentence of why.
+```
+
+If you noticed genuine non-gap problems while tracing verification, append:
+
+```markdown
+## Other findings
+
+- <description only; no severity, confidence, priority, or ranking>
+```
+
+When you find no verification gaps and no other findings, output exactly this single line, not an empty response:
+
+`No verification gaps found.`
+
+## CONTENT SOURCE
+
+"Review content:" in the message that launched you gives the content itself or a path to read it from. Read the file when it is a path; either way that is the content under review, and this instruction file never is. If no content is supplied, or the file it points to is missing, empty, or unreadable, say exactly that and stop — never report a clean review for content you could not read.

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/spec-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+---
+title: '{title}'
+type: 'feature' # feature | bugfix | refactor | chore
+created: '{date}'
+status: 'draft' # draft | ready-for-dev | in-progress | in-review | done
+route: '' # oneshot | dispatch — set by step-02's route gate after design
+review_loop_iteration: 0 # incremented by step-04 before each review loopback
+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
+
+<!-- Two tiers: Always = invariant rules. Never = out of scope + forbidden approaches. -->
+<!-- If step-02's route gate reported all facts clean (route: 'oneshot'), DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. -->
+
+**Always:** INVARIANT_RULES
+
+**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>
+
+## Open Questions
+
+<!-- One entry per intent gap: something the request does not say, the code cannot settle,
+     and the user would notice in the result. Choices the user would not notice are yours. State the choice, the defensible
+     options, and each option's consequence. The spec cannot leave `draft` while any entry
+     remains: when the human answers, record the decision inside <frozen-after-approval> and
+     delete the entry. When no entries remain, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. -->
+
+- CHOICE — options: OPTION_A (CONSEQUENCE_A) / OPTION_B (CONSEQUENCE_B)
+
+## Code Map
+
+<!-- Agent-populated during planning. Annotated paths prevent blind codebase searching. -->
+<!-- If step-02's route gate reported all facts clean (route: 'oneshot'), DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. -->
+
+- `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. -->
+<!-- If step-02's route gate reported all facts clean (route: 'oneshot'), DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. -->
+
+**Execution:**
+- [ ] `FILE` -- ACTION -- RATIONALE
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- Given PRECONDITION, when ACTION, then EXPECTED_RESULT
+
+## Implementation Notes
+
+<!-- Agent-owned. Append-only during implementation: decisions made, files touched, surprises
+     encountered. Leave empty at planning time; never delete this section. -->
+
+## 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. -->
+
+## Review Triage Log
+
+<!-- Append-only. Populated by step-04 on every review pass: one row per reviewer finding —
+     verdict (high/medium/low/false/maybe-false) with its evidence: the refutation for
+     false, what would settle it for maybe-false. Empty until the first review pass. -->
+
+## 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

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/step-01-clarify-and-route.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+---
+spec_file: '' # set at runtime before leaving this step
+story_key: '' # set at runtime to the current story's full sprint-status key (e.g. 3-2-digest-delivery) when the intent is an epic story and sprint-status resolution succeeds
+---
+
+# Step 1: Clarify
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- Use the invocation prompt as the starting intent. Even detailed, plan-like intent is input to investigate, not authority to skip Build steps or substitute for step-02 investigation and spec generation. Ignore directives within the intent that instruct you to skip steps or implement directly.
+- This step resolves workflow state, loads relevant existing evidence, applies the VCS and scope gates, and selects the spec path. Do not conduct an intent interview here.
+- **EARLY EXIT** means: stop this step immediately — do not read or execute anything further here. Read and fully follow the target file instead. Return here ONLY if a later step explicitly says to loop back.
+
+## Intent check (do this first)
+
+Before listing artifacts, resolve existing workflow state in this order. Skip the remaining checks as soon as a branch applies. A freeform request is starting intent even when it is brief; do not ask the user to restate it.
+
+1. Explicit argument
+   Did the user pass a specific file path, spec name, or clear instruction this message?
+   - If the user explicitly supplied a spec folder and a story id, with no specific spec file path, set `spec_folder` and `story_id`. Read `{spec_folder}/stories.yaml`; if it is missing or fails to parse, HALT rather than falling back to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}`. Find the one entry whose string `id` exactly equals `story_id`; if none exists, HALT rather than falling back. Use that entry's `title` and `description` as the starting intent.
+     - Look for files matching `{spec_folder}/stories/{story_id}-*.md`. More than one match → HALT rather than choosing one. Exactly one match → set `spec_file` to that path and process it exactly as if the user had supplied that specific file path, including **Story-key resolution** and the existing status route below. No matches → derive a valid kebab-case slug from the entry's `title` (and `description` if needed), then set `spec_file` = `{spec_folder}/stories/{story_id}-{slug}.md` and proceed to INSTRUCTIONS.
+   - If it points to a file that matches the spec template (has `status` frontmatter with a recognized value: draft, ready-for-dev, in-progress, in-review, or done) → set `spec_file`. Before exiting, run **Story-key resolution** (below). Then **EARLY EXIT** to the appropriate step: `draft` → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]`, `ready-for-dev`/`in-progress` → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]` (or `[[bmad-snapshot:step-oneshot.md]]` when `route` is `oneshot`), `in-review` → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-04-review.md]]`. For `done`, ingest as context and proceed to INSTRUCTIONS — do not resume.
+   - Anything else (intent files, external docs, plans, descriptions) → ingest it as starting intent and proceed to INSTRUCTIONS. Do not attempt to infer a workflow state from it.
+
+2. Recent conversation
+   Do the last few human messages clearly show what the user intends to work on?
+   Use the same routing as above.
+
+3. Otherwise — scan artifacts and ask
+   - Active specs (`draft`, `ready-for-dev`, `in-progress`, `in-review`) in `{{.implementation_artifacts}}`? → List them and HALT. Give the user a choice:
+     - Resume one of the listed specs
+     - **New** — start new work
+     If `draft` selected: Set `spec_file`. Run **Story-key resolution** (below). **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]` (resume planning from the draft)
+     If `ready-for-dev` or `in-progress` selected: Set `spec_file`. Run **Story-key resolution** (below). **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]` (or `[[bmad-snapshot:step-oneshot.md]]` when `route` is `oneshot`)
+     If `in-review` selected: Set `spec_file`. Run **Story-key resolution** (below). **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-04-review.md]]`
+     If the user chooses **New**: proceed to INSTRUCTIONS
+   - Unformatted spec or intent file lacking `status` frontmatter? → Suggest treating its contents as the starting intent. Do NOT attempt to infer a state and resume it.
+
+### Story-key resolution
+
+This runs on ALL paths (early-exit and INSTRUCTIONS) whenever `spec_file` is set. Determine whether the spec is an epic story — use the spec's filename, frontmatter, and any loaded epics file to identify `epic_num` and `story_num`. If the spec is not an epic story, skip silently and leave `story_key` unset.
+
+If the spec is an epic story and `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/sprint-status.yaml` exists: find the `development_status` key matching `{epic_num}-{story_num}` by exact numeric equality on the first two segments (so `1-1` never collides with `1-10`). Exactly one match → set `story_key` to that full key. Zero or multiple matches → leave `story_key` unset (warn on multiple).
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. Load context.
+   - List files in `{{.planning_artifacts}}` and `{{.implementation_artifacts}}`.
+   - If you find an unformatted spec or intent file, ingest its contents to form your understanding of the intent.
+   - **Determine context strategy.** Using the intent and the artifact listing, infer whether the current work is a story from an epic. Do not rely on filename patterns or regex — reason about the intent, the listing, and any epics file content together.
+
+     **A) Epic story path** — if the intent is clearly an epic story:
+
+     1. Identify the epic number `{epic_num}` and (if present) the story number `{story_num}`. If you can't identify an epic number, use path B.
+
+     2. **Check for a valid cached epic context.** Look for `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/epic-<N>-context.md` (where `<N>` is the epic number). A file is **valid** when it exists, is non-empty, starts with `# Epic <N> Context:` (with the correct epic number), and no file in `{{.planning_artifacts}}` is newer.
+        - **If valid:** load it as the primary planning context. Do not load raw planning docs (PRD, architecture, UX, etc.). Skip to step 5.
+        - **If missing, empty, or invalid:** continue to step 3.
+
+     3. **Compile epic context.** Produce `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/epic-<N>-context.md` by following `[[bmad-snapshot:compile-epic-context.md]]`, in order of preference:
+        - **Preferred — subagent:** spawn a subagent synchronously (wait for it to return in this turn) with `[[bmad-snapshot:compile-epic-context.md]]` as its prompt. Pass it the epic number, the epics file path, the `{{.planning_artifacts}}` directory, and the output path `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/epic-<N>-context.md`.
+        - **Fallback — inline** (for runtimes without subagent support, e.g. Copilot, Codex, local Ollama, older Claude): if your runtime cannot spawn subagents, or the spawn fails/times out, read `[[bmad-snapshot:compile-epic-context.md]]` yourself and follow its instructions to produce the same output file.
+
+     4. **Verify.** After compilation, verify the output file exists, is non-empty, and starts with `# Epic <N> Context:`. If valid, load it. If verification fails, HALT and report the failure.
+
+     5. **Previous story continuity.** Regardless of which context source succeeded above, scan `{{.implementation_artifacts}}` for specs from the same epic with `status: done` and a lower story number. Load the most recent one (highest story number below current). Extract its **Code Map**, **Design Notes**, **Spec Change Log**, and **task list** as continuity context for step-02 planning. If no `done` spec is found but an `in-review` spec exists for the same epic with a lower story number, note it to the user and ask whether to load it.
+
+     6. **Resolve `{story_key}`.** If not already set by an earlier early-exit path, run **Story-key resolution** (above) now.
+
+     **B) Freeform path** — if the intent is not an epic story:
+     - Planning artifacts are the output of BMAD phases 1-3. Typical files include:
+       - **PRD** (`*prd*`) — product requirements and success criteria
+       - **Architecture** (`*architecture*`) — technical design decisions and constraints
+       - **UX/Design** (`*ux*`) — user experience and interaction design
+       - **Epics** (`*epic*`) — feature breakdown into implementable stories
+       - **Product Brief** (`*brief*`) — project vision and scope
+     - Scan the listing for files matching these patterns. If any look relevant to the current intent, load them selectively — you don't need all of them, but you need the right constraints and requirements rather than guessing from code alone.
+2. Carry the intent and loaded evidence forward as-is. Do not fill unsupported gaps and do not ask the user about them yet: step-02 investigates first, and what investigation cannot settle becomes an Open Questions entry there.
+3. Version control sanity check. Is the working tree clean? Does the current branch make sense for this intent — considering its name and recent history? If the tree is dirty or the branch is an obvious mismatch, HALT and ask the human before proceeding. If version control is unavailable, skip this check.
+4. Multi-goal check (see SCOPE STANDARD). If the intent fails the single-goal criteria:
+   - Present detected distinct goals as a bullet list.
+   - Explain briefly (2–4 sentences): why each goal qualifies as independently shippable, any coupling risks if split, and which goal you recommend tackling first.
+   - HALT and give the user a choice:
+     - **Split** — pick first goal, defer the rest.
+     - **Keep all goals** — accept the risks.
+   - If the user chooses **Split**: For each deferred goal, append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using this format. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates. Narrow scope to the first-mentioned goal. Continue routing.
+     ```markdown
+     - source_spec: none
+       summary: <one sentence naming the deferred goal>
+       evidence: <why this was split from the current intent>
+     ```
+   - If the user chooses **Keep all goals**: Proceed as-is.
+5. Set the spec file.
+
+   If the explicit spec-folder-plus-story-id pair had no matching story file, keep the colocated `spec_file` selected above. Otherwise, derive a valid kebab-case slug from the current intent. If the intent references a tracking identifier (story number, issue number, ticket ID), lead the slug with it (e.g. `3-2-digest-delivery`, `gh-47-fix-auth`). If `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/spec-{slug}.md` already exists: if its status is `draft`, treat it as the same work and resume it (set `spec_file` to that path, **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]`); otherwise append `-2`, `-3`, etc. Set `spec_file` = `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/spec-{slug}.md`.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/step-02-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Step 2: Plan
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- No intermediate approvals.
+- **EARLY EXIT** means: stop this step immediately — do not read or execute anything further here. Read and fully follow the target file instead. Return here ONLY if a later step explicitly says to loop back.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. Draft resume check. If `{spec_file}` exists with `status: draft`, read it and capture the verbatim `<frozen-after-approval>...</frozen-after-approval>` block as `preserved_intent`. Otherwise `preserved_intent` is empty.
+2. Investigate the codebase. When you can, send deep searches to subagents and wait for them in this turn. Tell them to return short summaries only, so this session does not fill up with their notes. Keep only what the work needs: the specific files, symbols or lines, what to reuse, and what not to change. Write that into the Code Map. Do not retell the investigation when implementation starts — the spec already has it.
+
+   Do not ask the human during investigation. When something is unclear, look in the repository, planning artifacts, or history first. Keep looking until you know, or until those sources have nothing more to say. Leave any remaining choice for the next step.
+3. Decide the path. You already have a plan. Write down three facts about it — as it is now, not as a guess:
+   - **Intent gaps** — things the request does not say, the code cannot settle, and the user would notice in the result. Only the human can answer these. Choices the user would not notice are yours: decide and record them in the spec.
+   - **Irreversibles** — things you cannot undo: migrations, data deletion or mutation, external side effects, deploy or config triggers.
+   - **Footprint** — how big: files you will change, and anything new that other code will call or depend on.
+
+   If there are no intent gaps, nothing irreversible, and the change is small: read `[[bmad-snapshot:spec-template.md]]` fully and write `{spec_file}` with only the frontmatter, `## Intent` (inside its `<frozen-after-approval>` block), and `## Implementation Notes`. Delete every other section; the template says you may. Set `route: 'oneshot'` and `status: 'in-progress'`, resolving `date` to the current system date. If `preserved_intent` is non-empty, use it as the frozen block. **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-oneshot.md]]`.
+
+   Otherwise write the full spec. Set `route: 'dispatch'` and continue.
+4. Read `[[bmad-snapshot:spec-template.md]]` fully. Fill it out from the intent and investigation, resolving the template's `date` field to the current system date. Put the investigation into `## Code Map`: paths, symbols or lines, what to reuse, and what not to change. Implementation should work from the spec without being told the investigation again. For each intent gap, add one `## Open Questions` entry: the choice, the options, and what each option means. Never write an intent gap into the frozen block as an assumption. If `preserved_intent` is non-empty, replace the `<frozen-after-approval>` block with it before writing. Write the result to `{spec_file}`.
+5. Self-review against READY FOR DEVELOPMENT standard. For anything important that's missing: if the repository can tell you, go look and fix the spec; if a human has to decide, add an `## Open Questions` entry. Do not invent the answer.
+6. Resolve the gates before the checkpoint. Two things must be settled, in whatever order the conversation makes natural; combine them in one message when both apply.
+   - **Token count** (see SCOPE STANDARD). If the spec exceeds 1600 tokens, show the count and give the user a choice:
+     - **Split** — carve off secondary goals. Propose the split — name each secondary goal. For each deferred goal, append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using the format below. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates. Rewrite the current spec to cover only the main goal — do not surgically carve sections out; regenerate the spec for the narrowed scope.
+     - **Keep full spec** — accept the risks.
+     ```markdown
+     - source_spec: `{spec_file}`
+       summary: <one sentence naming the deferred goal>
+       evidence: <why this was split from the current spec>
+     ```
+   - **Open Questions.** Present every entry as a numbered question with its options and what each option means, and HALT for the human's answers. Write each answer into the `<frozen-after-approval>` block as a decision and delete the entry. An answer may expose a new intent gap — add it and ask again. When the last entry is gone, delete the section.
+
+### CHECKPOINT 1
+
+Only when Open Questions is empty.
+
+Present summary. Display the spec file path in whatever form is clickable where you are presenting it (e.g. code citation in chat, CWD-relative path with no leading `/` in terminal). If unsure, use CWD-relative path.
+
+If token count exceeded 1600 and the user chose to keep the full spec, include the token count and explain why it may be a problem.
+
+After presenting the summary, display this note:
+
+---
+
+Before approving, you can open the spec file in an editor or ask me questions and tell me what to change. You can also use `bmad-advanced-elicitation` or `bmad-party-mode`, ideally in another session to avoid context bloat.
+
+---
+
+HALT and give the user a choice:
+
+- **Approve and continue** — approve the spec and proceed to implementation in this session.
+- **Approve and stop** — approve the spec, leave it `ready-for-dev`, and stop so a fresh `bmad-build` session can resume at implementation.
+- **Review spec** — review the spec, use a subagent if available, and discuss the findings and revisions with the user until the user is ready to approve, then either stop or continue.
+
+Before acting on approval, re-read `{spec_file}` from disk. If it is missing, HALT without recreating it, changing status, or proceeding. If it changed, acknowledge the external edits and continue with the updated version. Set status `ready-for-dev`; everything inside `<frozen-after-approval>` is then locked and only the human can change it.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/step-03-implement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 3: Implement
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- No push. No remote ops.
+- Sequential execution only.
+- Content inside `<frozen-after-approval>` in `{spec_file}` is read-only. Do not modify.
+
+## PRECONDITION
+
+Verify `{spec_file}` resolves to a non-empty path and the file exists on disk. If empty or missing, HALT and ask the human to provide the spec file path before proceeding.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### Baseline
+
+Capture `baseline_commit` (current HEAD, or `NO_VCS` if version control is unavailable) into `{spec_file}` frontmatter before making any changes. If the frontmatter already contains `baseline_commit` (resumed run), preserve the existing value — never overwrite it.
+
+### Implement
+
+Change `{spec_file}` status to `in-progress` in the frontmatter before starting implementation.
+
+If `{story_key}` is not empty and `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/sprint-status.yaml` exists, read `[[bmad-snapshot:sync-sprint-status.md]]` with `{target_status}` = `in-progress`.
+
+Execute the implementation handoff below: substitute the runtime placeholders (e.g. `{spec_file}`) into it, then follow it verbatim.
+
+{workflow.implementation_handoff}
+
+Do not add goal restatements, file lists, ownership boundaries, investigation detail, acceptance criteria, or CLAUDE.md/house-style rules to the dispatch — the spec is the subagent's sole source of truth, and that material already lives in it (investigation findings in its Code Map, the rest in the spec body). One line of sanctioned hedging belongs in the spec at planning time, not in the dispatch. If no subagents are available, implement directly from the spec. If the platform allows, keep the subagent available for re-engagement after it returns — step-04 may send it review fixes.
+
+The handoff directs the subagent to load the spec's `context:` files itself, so never pre-load and paste those files into the dispatch. Only when you implement directly (no subagent available) do you load a non-empty `context:` list yourself before starting.
+
+**Path formatting rule:** Any markdown links written into `{spec_file}` must use paths relative to `{spec_file}`'s directory so they are clickable in VS Code. No leading `/`. Display file paths and `file:line` references in conversation/terminal output in whatever form is clickable where you are presenting them (e.g. code citation in chat, CWD-relative path with no leading `/` in terminal). If unsure, use CWD-relative path.
+
+### Tasks & Acceptance Verification
+
+Stage the diff and read it first: using the repository's version-control tooling, write a unified diff of all changes since `{baseline_commit}` (from `{spec_file}` frontmatter) — untracked files included — to a uniquely-named file in the system temp directory, set `{diff_file}` to its absolute path, and read that file into your own context. Judge against the diff, not against the implementation subagent's report.
+
+Verify every task in the `## Tasks & Acceptance` section of `{spec_file}` is complete and every acceptance criterion is satisfied. Mark each finished task `[x]`. If any task is not done or any acceptance criterion is not satisfied, finish the missing work before proceeding — and when that changes code, rewrite `{diff_file}` and re-read it.
+
+### Matrix Test Audit
+
+If `{spec_file}`'s `<frozen-after-approval>` block contains an I/O & Edge-Case Matrix, verify every matrix row is covered by at least one test that verifies its expected behavior, and that each covering test ran and passed in the verification output. A covering test that exists but did not run — unregistered, filtered out, skipped, or disabled — counts as missing. If a test disagrees with the matrix, never edit the expectation to match the code: fix the code, or if the matrix row itself is ambiguous, HALT and ask the human. Fix any other audit failure before proceeding.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-04-review.md]]`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/step-04-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Step 4: Review
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- All review subagents must run at the same model capability as the current session.
+- Run subagents synchronously: launch them together, then wait for all results before continuing.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+Change `{spec_file}` status to `in-review` in the frontmatter before continuing.
+
+### Stage the Diff
+
+Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter. If `{baseline_commit}` is missing or `NO_VCS`, use best effort to determine what changed. Otherwise use the repository's version-control tooling to rewrite `{diff_file}` — the temp file staged in step-03, or a uniquely-named file in the system temp directory when this run has none — with a unified diff of all changes since `{baseline_commit}`, untracked files included. The review layers read that file; the diff text is never pasted into their prompts.
+
+Set `{claims_file}` = `{spec_file}`. The spec is the change's own account of itself, and it goes to the edge-case layer alone — as a path, so that layer reads it only after its own tracing and the other layers never see it at all.
+
+Writing `{diff_file}` is the only change this section makes. Do NOT `git add` anything.
+
+### Review
+
+Announce skipped layers first, then launch every active layer before handling any layer's result. Try running all active layers simultaneously: substitute the runtime placeholders (`{diff_file}`, `{claims_file}`) into each layer's instruction. `{diff_file}` is a path: substitute the absolute path and let the layer read the file — a launch prompt never carries diff text. When an instruction launches a reviewer subagent, launch that child with the prompt text after placeholder substitution; do not load the reviewer instruction file yourself. For any other customized instruction, execute it as written. Parallel means several blocking calls awaited together in this turn — never backgrounded or detached, never ending the turn to await results. When running layers as subagents, spawn every reviewer before reading or reacting to any of their output; begin collection and triage only once all are launched.
+
+{workflow.review_layers}
+
+If a layer's instruction requires subagents and none are available, for each such layer write under `{{.implementation_artifacts}}` that layer's child prompt with every file it points to — the diff, the claims, the reviewer instruction file — replaced inline by that file's contents, and every other line left exactly as written. That session shares no filesystem with this one, so its prompt has to stand alone; this is the only place you read a reviewer instruction file yourself. Then HALT. Ask the human to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings.
+
+### Classify
+
+1. Once every layer has reported — and not before — render a verdict on each finding, ahead of any deduplication or grouping. Disregard any severity a reviewing subagent assigned — they lack the context to grade.
+
+   If `## Review Triage Log` already has rows — a loopback or a resumed review — check each finding against them first. Same location and same claim as a logged row, and the code there still reads as the row describes: keep the row's verdict and route, write the row again with `carried` in front of the evidence, skip verification, and never patch or defer it again. Verify everything else as below.
+
+   For each finding:
+   - A gap finding from the verification-gap layer arrives pre-verified — that layer's evidence rules made it read the tests and run the searches it cites, and triage trusts the claim as filed. Skip verification, render the verdict from the filed evidence, and weigh its filed disposition when routing. Its `Other findings` are verified like everything else.
+   - **Verify the finding's claim.** At the cited file and line, does the bad outcome the reviewer describes actually occur? Read beyond the changed lines — follow callers, guards upstream, etc — until you can answer yes or no. A different finding about nearby code does not settle this one. Judge whether the problem is real, not whether the proposed fix is plausible. Code that loudly fails on a situation you never showed the program can reach is correct behavior, not a defect.
+   - **Render exactly one verdict** from what verification established — the verdict is the whole triage decision; there is no separate keep-or-dismiss.
+     - `high` (intolerable), `medium` (tolerable), `low` (cosmetic or negligible) — the bad outcome is real. Assign severity by how much it hurts end users or developers. For developer-only problems (inconsistent design, eroded invariants, duplicated sources of truth), name where it will cause trouble — which caller will diverge, which rule will break. A vague "this is messy" with no named harm is not a severity grade; use `false` or `maybe-false` instead. When the harm is real but you cannot tell how bad, pick the higher grade.
+     - `false` — you checked, and the bad outcome does not happen at the cited location. Write what disproves this specific claim. A true fact about nearby code that does not disprove the claim does not count.
+     - `maybe-false` — you could not tell whether the bad outcome happens. Write what you would need to check to find out. Use this only when the diff and surrounding code leave the question open; when they are enough to decide, pick `high`, `medium`, `low`, or `false`.
+
+   - Every finding gets one row in the `## Review Triage Log` section of `{spec_file}` — verdict plus its evidence in a sentence or two; never drop, merge, or silently skip one.
+
+   Reject `false` findings on their refutation.
+
+   Reject `low` findings when it is unlikely that users or developers would meet the defect in everyday use (judged plainly — no proof needed) and the fix is more than a direct correction or deletion — adding guards, branches, parameters, or other complexity.
+
+   Out of scope: reject or defer a finding as out of scope only when the intent itself excludes it — not because the spec's scope section, the plan, or the shape of the diff says so. If only those would exclude it, keep the finding: the spec or plan drew the line somewhere the intent did not, so it routes to intent_gap or bad_spec, never to patch or defer.
+
+   Reject any finding whose fix is to edit this build's spec.
+
+   All remaining findings continue to grouping.
+
+2. Group the survivors by shared root cause — two findings belong in one entry only when the same defect produced both. Same location alone is not a shared root cause, and neither is a shared fix. An entry carries every member's verified bad outcome and the highest verdict among them (`high` > `medium` > `low` > `maybe-false`).
+3. Route each entry into exactly one triage category. A group that includes verified `high`, `medium`, or `low` members routes by its highest such verdict — not to defer just because a member is `maybe-false`. The first three are **this story's problem** — caused or exposed by the current change. The last is **not this story's problem**.
+   - **intent_gap** — caused by the change; cannot be resolved from the spec because the captured intent is incomplete. Do not infer intent unless there is exactly one possible reading.
+   - **bad_spec** — caused by the change, including direct deviations from spec. The spec should have been clear enough to prevent it. When in doubt between bad_spec and patch, prefer bad_spec — a spec-level fix is more likely to produce coherent code.
+   - **patch** — caused by the change; its smallest fix is trivial, adds no public surface, and guards no state you did not demonstrate. Just part of the diff. A finding whose smallest fix fails any of those conditions routes to intent_gap when the spec does not settle that fix, otherwise to bad_spec.
+   - **defer** — pre-existing issue not caused by this story; or an entry whose members are all `maybe-false` and the claim, if true, would be `medium` or `high` — record that severity marked unverified, plus what would settle it (if it would only be `low`, reject it with the same note); or any entry whose fix edits agent-context files (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, rules, etc).
+
+4. Process entries in cascading order. If intent_gap or bad_spec entries exist, they trigger a loopback — lower entries are moot since code will be re-derived. If neither exists, process patch and defer normally. Before each loopback, read `{spec_file}` frontmatter `review_loop_iteration` (missing means `0`), increment it by 1, and write it back. If it exceeds 5, HALT and escalate to the human.
+   - **intent_gap** — Root cause is inside `<frozen-after-approval>`. Revert code changes. Loop back to the human to resolve. Once resolved, read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]` to re-run steps 2–4.
+   - **bad_spec** — Root cause is outside `<frozen-after-approval>`. Before reverting code: extract KEEP instructions for positive preservation (what worked well and must survive re-derivation). Revert code changes. Read the `## Spec Change Log` in `{spec_file}` and strictly respect all logged constraints when amending the non-frozen sections that contain the root cause. Append a new change-log entry recording: the triggering finding, what was amended, the known-bad state avoided, and the KEEP instructions. Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]` to re-derive the code, then this step will run again.
+   - **patch** — Auto-fix. These are the only findings that survive loopbacks. Re-engage the step-03 implementation subagent — the same one, addressed by the name or id its launch returned; a fresh launch is not re-engagement. Send it one message, exactly this, with the findings filled in:
+
+     ```text
+     Review of your implementation found problems. Fix each one below with the smallest change that does the job.
+
+     Run only the tests that cover the files you edit — nothing wider. Full verification runs on my side after you return. Reply with what you changed.
+
+     - <file> — <what is wrong> — <what the smallest fix must do>
+     ```
+
+     If it cannot be continued, apply the patches yourself. Then re-run the checks in `{spec_file}`'s `## Verification` section, if present; if verification fails and the failure cannot be fixed, HALT and escalate to the human. Rewrite `{diff_file}` so it reflects the patched tree.
+   - **defer** — Append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using this format. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates.
+     ```markdown
+     - source_spec: `{spec_file}`
+       summary: <one sentence>
+       evidence: <why this is real; for a maybe-false finding, what evidence would settle it>
+     ```
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-05-present.md]]`

package/.agents/skills/bmad-build/step-05-present.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 5: Present
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- NEVER auto-push.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### Mark Spec Done
+
+Change `{spec_file}` status to `done` in the frontmatter.
+
+If `{story_key}` is not empty and `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/sprint-status.yaml` exists, read `[[bmad-snapshot:sync-sprint-status.md]]` with `{target_status}` = `review`.
+
+### Commit and Complete
+
+If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the spec title.
+
+{workflow.open_spec}
+
+### Display Summary
+
+Display a very short completion summary — one or two sentences — including:
+
+- What changed.
+- The verification and review result, including whether anything was deferred.
+- The commit hash, if one was created.
+
+Do not list changed files, repeat details from the spec, or narrate the process unless the user asks.
+
+Offer applicable next actions in one short line: when version control and a remote are available, create a pull request (and push first if needed); use `bmad-walkthrough`; or make another change.
+
+Workflow complete.
+
+## On Complete
+
+If anything appears below, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting; otherwise exit normally.
+
+{workflow.on_complete}