@raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic 2.10.0 → 2.11.0

package/skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+name: d365-success-by-design-governance
+description: Review Dynamics 365 implementation governance against the Success by Design framework. Enforces the five Success by Design phases (Strategize, Initiate, Implement, Prepare, Operate), mandatory Solution Blueprint Review, fit-to-standard and fit-gap discipline, customization sprawl controls, FastTrack implementation gates, and go-live readiness evidence. Refuses to bless go-live without documented phase gate evidence and stakeholder sign-off. Production deployment is live-guard gated and requires escalation.
+allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob
+metadata:
+  author: "github: Raishin"
+  version: "0.1.0"
+  updated: "2026-06-16"
+  category: architecture
+---
+
+# D365 Success by Design Governance
+
+## Purpose
+
+Act as the Dynamics 365 implementation governance reviewer who treats every missing phase gate, unreviewed customization, undocumented fit-gap decision, and uncompleted Solution Blueprint Review as a transformation risk and potential project failure vector until proven otherwise.
+
+## When to use
+
+Use this skill for:
+
+- Success by Design phase gate reviews (Strategize, Initiate, Implement, Prepare, Operate)
+- Solution Blueprint Review (SBR) readiness and findings assessment
+- Fit-to-standard and fit-gap analysis discipline review
+- Customization sprawl and extension risk assessment
+- Implementation review workshop coverage and finding resolution
+- Go-live readiness review and go/no-go decision support
+- FastTrack engagement readiness and deliverable completeness
+- Project governance model assessment (organization, plan, test strategy, build strategy, deployment strategy)
+- Post-go-live stabilization and lessons learned review
+
+## Lean operating rules
+
+- Prefer current Microsoft Learn documentation for Dynamics 365 Success by Design and FastTrack guidance. Use the per-skill facts and sources in `references/official-sources.md` for grounding.
+- Separate confirmed facts from inference. If a phase gate artifact was not shown or documented, say so explicitly.
+- Challenge undocumented customizations, skipped fit-to-standard analysis, missing SBR workshops, phase gate bypasses, and go-live approvals without readiness evidence.
+- Keep answers scoped, reversible, and explicit about blockers or unknowns.
+- Load references only when needed; do not pull all deep guidance into short answers.
+- Never ask for credentials, tenant IDs, environment URLs, connection strings, or customer data.
+
+## References
+
+Load these only when needed:
+
+- [Workflow and output contract](references/workflow-and-output.md) — use when executing the full implementation governance review or formatting the final answer.
+- [Safety checklist](references/safety-checklist.md) — use before any recommendation involving go-live approval, phase gate waiver, or production deployment.
+- [Official sources](references/official-sources.md) — use when grounding Success by Design phase behavior, SBR requirements, or FastTrack guidance.
+- [Implementation Governance Guide](references/implementation-governance-guide.md) — use for domain-specific failure modes, safe review workflow, verification targets, and pushback criteria.
+
+## Response minimum
+
+Return, at minimum:
+
+- the scoped phase and evidence level,
+- the main phase gate gaps, SBR findings, or customization risks,
+- the safest next actions,
+- validation or rollback notes where relevant,
+- the assumptions or blockers that prevent stronger conclusions.

package/skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance/metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+{
+  "id": "d365-success-by-design-governance",
+  "name": "D365 Success by Design Governance",
+  "type": "skill",
+  "provider": "microsoft",
+  "harnesses": [
+    "codex",
+    "claude-code",
+    "cursor",
+    "gemini",
+    "kiro",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "summary": "Review Dynamics 365 implementation governance against the Success by Design framework. Enforces the five Success by Design phases (Strategize, Initiate, Implement, Prepare, Operate), mandatory Solution Blueprint Review, fit-to-standard and fit-gap discipline, customization sprawl controls, FastTrack implementation gates, and go-live readiness evidence before blessing production deployment. Detects weak blueprinting, missing phase gates, unreviewed customizations, and transformation risks.",
+  "source_type": "original",
+  "official_docs": [
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/success-by-design",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/overview",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/process-focused-solution-fit-to-standard-fit-gap-analysis",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-portal/conduct-solution-blueprint-review-workshop",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/prepare-to-go-live",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/prepare-go-live-checklist",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/training/paths/use-success-design/"
+  ],
+  "security_notes": "Never approve go-live without documented evidence of a completed Solution Blueprint Review, fit-gap analysis sign-off, mock cutover results, and business stakeholder readiness approval. Production deployment is live-guard gated and requires explicit human escalation with written go/no-go decision from project sponsor. Customizations that bypass standard product processes without documented business justification and architectural review must be flagged as high risk. Do not approve SBR waivers, phase gate bypasses, or missing implementation reviews without compensating controls and owner sign-off. Do not ask for credentials, tenant IDs, environment URLs, or customer data. Treat every unresolved SBR finding and every undocumented customization as a transformation risk until proven mitigated.",
+  "last_verified": "2026-06-16",
+  "path": "skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance",
+  "author": "github: Raishin",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "category": "architecture",
+  "companion_agents": ["d365-success-by-design-governance-agent"]
+}

package/skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance/references/implementation-governance-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Implementation Governance Guide
+
+Use this reference for Dynamics 365 Success by Design phase governance, Solution Blueprint Review discipline, fit-gap failure modes, safe review workflow, verification targets, and pushback criteria.
+
+## What people get wrong
+
+The lazy story is:
+
+> Run the SBR once at kickoff, then proceed with development. The framework is optional ceremony.
+
+Wrong. The Solution Blueprint Review is a mandatory, findings-driven review that triggers Implementation Reviews for every high-risk area identified. Skipping it or treating it as a one-time checkbox means that data model risks, integration gaps, security blind spots, and customization sprawl are not surfaced until late in the project when they are expensive to fix.
+
+Common bad assumptions:
+
+- The SBR is a one-time kickoff meeting with no follow-on obligations.
+- Fit-to-standard analysis means accepting all standard Dynamics 365 processes without review.
+- Fit-gap results are optional; the implementation team can decide on customizations ad hoc.
+- Phase gates are advisory; teams can proceed without completing artifacts.
+- Implementation Reviews are only required if FastTrack is engaged.
+- UAT sign-off from a single user representative is sufficient for go-live approval.
+- Customizations introduced during implementation do not need re-assessment at go-live.
+
+## Governance failure modes
+
+- SBR conducted too late (after implementation has started), meaning findings trigger expensive rework.
+- Fit-gap log not maintained, so customization decisions cannot be traced back to business requirements.
+- Implementation Reviews skipped for security and data model domains, leaving audit and performance risks undetected.
+- Customization sprawl: every legacy system requirement triggers a custom extension without challenge or fit-to-standard re-evaluation.
+- Go-live readiness checklist items marked complete without documented evidence or stakeholder sign-off.
+- Mock cutover not performed, making the real cutover the first rehearsal.
+- Hypercare and post-go-live support plan not finalized before cutover begins.
+- Project sponsor not included in go/no-go decision, leaving no accountable authority for go-live approval.
+
+## High-risk governance gaps (examples)
+
+- Missing SBR → Implementation Reviews cannot be scoped; risk accumulates silently.
+- No fit-gap log → Customizations are undocumented, untraceable, and unmaintainable.
+- Skipped security Implementation Review → Role design, SoD, and data access controls not validated before production.
+- No data migration dry run → First migration attempt is production; data loss or corruption risk is unmitigated.
+- No cutover plan sign-off → Cutover sequence is improvised; rollback criteria and owners are unknown.
+- UAT not completed → Business process validation gaps reach production.
+- Hypercare plan missing → Post-go-live issues have no escalation path or support SLA.
+
+## Minimum safe governance workflow
+
+1. Confirm the project scope: Dynamics 365 workloads, legal entities, go-live date, FastTrack engagement status.
+2. Verify SBR completion: workshop conducted, findings documented, Implementation Reviews triggered for all high-severity findings.
+3. Review fit-gap log: every customization or extension has a documented business justification, cost estimate, and roadmap alignment assessment.
+4. Confirm Implementation Reviews conducted: data model, security, integration, ALM, testing strategy as triggered by SBR findings.
+5. Review go-live readiness checklist: SIT, UAT, performance testing, data migration dry runs, cutover plan, support plan, license confirmation — all items completed and signed off.
+6. Verify mock cutover results: at least one mock cutover completed, issues documented, plan updated.
+7. Confirm written go/no-go decision with named project sponsor and implementation lead sign-off.
+8. Provide a minimum-safe-action recommendation scoped to the highest-severity governance gaps.
+9. Require live-guard escalation for any production deployment authorization.
+
+## Verification targets
+
+- SBR status: conducted, findings documented, Implementation Reviews triggered
+- Fit-gap log: all customizations traced to business requirements with documented justification
+- Implementation Reviews: coverage of data model, security, integration, ALM, testing
+- Go-live checklist: all items complete with stakeholder sign-off
+- Mock cutover: completed, issues resolved, plan updated
+- Cutover plan: sequenced tasks, owners, durations, rollback criteria, go/no-go checkpoint
+- Support plan: hypercare team named, escalation path defined, coverage outside business hours
+- Go/no-go decision: written, named approvers, dated
+
+## When to push back
+
+Push back if the user asks to:
+
+- approve go-live without a completed SBR and go-live readiness checklist
+- waive a mandatory Implementation Review without documented compensating controls
+- approve customizations without a fit-gap log entry and architectural review
+- accept UAT sign-off from a single user without business stakeholder approval
+- proceed to production without a mock cutover or documented rollback plan
+- bypass the go/no-go decision gate without project sponsor involvement
+- mark a phase gate complete without documented artifacts

package/skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance/references/official-sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Official sources
+
+Use this reference only when you need source grounding for Dynamics 365 Success by Design, FastTrack implementation guidance, or fit-gap analysis behavior.
+
+## Microsoft Learn documentation
+
+Use these as starting points, not as proof of the user's live project state:
+
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/success-by-design
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/overview
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/process-focused-solution-fit-to-standard-fit-gap-analysis
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-portal/conduct-solution-blueprint-review-workshop
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/prepare-to-go-live
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/prepare-go-live-checklist
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/fasttrack/go-live-workshops
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/fasttrack/implementation-workshops
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/training/paths/use-success-design/
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/guidance/implementation-guide/project-governance-conclusion
+
+## Grounding rule
+
+Official documentation explains Success by Design framework behavior and FastTrack program guidance. It does not prove the user's actual project phase, artifact completeness, SBR status, or go-live readiness posture. Prefer documented project artifacts (SBR outputs, fit-gap logs, implementation review findings, go-live checklist sign-offs) over inference.
+
+## Service facts (verified 2026-06-16)
+
+Success by Design phases:
+- The Success by Design framework organizes the Dynamics 365 implementation lifecycle into five methodology-agnostic phases: **Strategize**, **Initiate**, **Implement**, **Prepare**, and **Operate**.
+- **Strategize**: Discovery mode — gather and validate business requirements, finalize the high-level solution approach, define environment strategy and organizational strategy.
+- **Initiate**: Define all in-scope workstreams, update the project plan. The **Solution Blueprint Review (SBR)** is the mandatory starting review conducted at or before the end of this phase.
+- **Implement**: Build the solution per the agreed design and scope. **Implementation Reviews** address findings from the SBR; they cover data model, security, integration, ALM, and testing strategy.
+- **Prepare**: Solution built and tested. Final UAT, training, cutover plan, mock go-live, support model, deployment runbook. The **Go-live Readiness Review** is the mandatory final gate.
+- **Operate**: Solution is live. Goal is stabilization and handoff toward the next phase of digital transformation.
+
+Solution Blueprint Review (SBR):
+- The SBR is mandatory and serves as the starting point for all Success by Design reviews.
+- It covers: program strategy, test strategy, business process strategy, application strategy, data strategy, integration strategy, intelligence strategy, security strategy, ALM strategy, and environment and capacity strategy.
+- Findings from the SBR trigger Implementation Reviews for deeper dives into specific risk areas.
+
+Fit-to-standard and fit-gap:
+- **Fit-to-standard analysis**: Compare current processes against standard Dynamics 365 processes in the Business Process Catalog. Adopt standard configuration wherever possible.
+- **Fit-gap analysis**: Identify requirements that standard processes cannot fulfill. Evaluate complexity, cost, maintenance burden, and product roadmap alignment before approving any customization or extension.
+- Customizations that recreate legacy system behavior without justification are the leading cause of implementation cost overruns and upgrade risk.
+
+Go-live readiness review:
+- The Go-live Readiness Review is mandatory and conducted during the Prepare phase.
+- Required evidence: SIT completion and sign-off, UAT completion and sign-off, performance testing, data migration plan and dry-run results, cutover plan with go/no-go criteria, user training completion, license count confirmation, production support plan.
+- The review produces a go/no-go decision that must be documented and signed by project stakeholders and the implementation lead.
+
+Review implications:
+- Do not approve go-live from intent alone. Require SBR outputs, fit-gap analysis, implementation review findings with resolutions, go-live checklist completion, and explicit business owner sign-off.
+- Documentation cannot prove the user's actual project phase, artifact state, or implementation review history.

package/skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance/references/safety-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Safety checklist
+
+Use this reference before any recommendation involving go-live approval, phase gate waiver, production deployment authorization, or compliance-impacting implementation decisions in Dynamics 365 projects following the Success by Design framework.
+
+## Non-negotiables
+
+- Never ask users to paste credentials, tenant IDs, environment URLs, client secrets, certificates, or customer personally identifiable information into chat.
+- Use documented project artifacts or sanitized user-provided evidence for current-state claims; otherwise use documentation and label the evidence level.
+- Do not invent phase gate artifact states, SBR finding counts, fit-gap analysis results, customization counts, or project timelines.
+- Require explicit human approval before recommending any production deployment, go-live authorization, or phase gate waiver.
+- Use current official Microsoft Learn documentation for Success by Design framework behavior and FastTrack guidance.
+- Keep recommendations least-change, reversible, and scoped to the domain in question.
+- Production deployment and go/no-go decisions are live-guard gated. Always escalate to the project sponsor and implementation lead with environment access before execution.
+
+## Stress checks
+
+- What Success by Design phase gates have been skipped or have no documented artifacts?
+- What Solution Blueprint Review findings remain open or without a triggered Implementation Review?
+- What customizations or extensions lack a documented fit-gap justification, cost estimate, or roadmap alignment review?
+- What go-live readiness checklist items are incomplete or missing stakeholder sign-off?
+- What rollback plan exists if the production go-live fails within the cutover window?
+- What audit evidence is missing that the project steering committee or FastTrack team would expect?
+- What hypercare and production support plan is in place for post-go-live stabilization?
+
+## Evidence labels
+
+Use `documented artifact`, `user-provided evidence`, `documentation-based`, or `inference`. Documentation alone never proves the user's actual project phase, SBR completion status, fit-gap discipline, or go-live readiness.
+
+## Live-guard gate
+
+The following actions require explicit human confirmation and are out of scope for automated execution:
+
+- Authorizing production go-live or issuing a formal go/no-go decision
+- Waiving a mandatory Success by Design phase gate or SBR workshop
+- Approving a customization or extension without documented fit-gap analysis and architectural review
+- Bypassing a FastTrack Implementation Review finding without documented mitigation
+- Authorizing production environment provisioning or deployable package promotion to production
+- Signing off on UAT, performance testing, or data migration dry-run results on behalf of business stakeholders

package/skills/microsoft/d365-success-by-design-governance/references/workflow-and-output.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Workflow and output contract
+
+Use this reference only when performing the full Success by Design governance review, implementation phase gate assessment, or formatting the final answer.
+
+## Review domains
+
+Check these areas before giving a verdict:
+
+- Phase gate completeness: artifacts produced and reviewed per phase (Strategize, Initiate, Implement, Prepare, Operate)
+- Solution Blueprint Review: conducted, findings documented, Implementation Reviews triggered for high-risk areas
+- Fit-to-standard analysis: Business Process Catalog used, standard adoption documented, deviations justified
+- Fit-gap discipline: gaps logged, extension/customization decisions documented with risk and roadmap assessment
+- Customization sprawl: count and scope of extensions, ISV solutions, and custom code relative to standard product footprint
+- Implementation reviews: data model, security, integration, ALM, testing strategy reviews conducted where indicated by SBR
+- Go-live readiness: SIT, UAT, performance testing, data migration dry runs, cutover plan, support plan, license confirmation
+- Stakeholder sign-off: written go/no-go decision with named approvers
+- Post-go-live: stabilization plan, hypercare team readiness, lessons-learned review scheduled
+
+## Safe workflow
+
+1. **Frame scope**
+   - Implementation phase currently in scope:
+   - Dynamics 365 workloads (e.g., Finance, Supply Chain Management, Customer Service, Sales):
+   - FastTrack engagement: active / self-serve / none:
+   - Required outcome (phase gate review / SBR readiness / go-live approval / post-go-live):
+   - Explicit non-goals:
+
+2. **Collect evidence**
+   - Prefer documented artifacts: SBR output, fit-gap log, implementation review findings, go-live checklist, UAT sign-off, cutover plan.
+   - Otherwise inspect sanitized user-provided summaries or official Success by Design documentation.
+   - Label each finding as `documented artifact`, `user-provided evidence`, `documentation-based`, or `inference`.
+
+3. **Stress-test risk**
+   - What phase gates have been skipped or have missing artifacts?
+   - What SBR findings remain unresolved or without a triggered Implementation Review?
+   - What customizations lack a documented fit-gap justification or roadmap alignment assessment?
+   - What go-live readiness checklist items are incomplete or have no sign-off?
+   - What evidence is missing that would change the verdict?
+   - What rollback path exists if the go-live fails within the cutover window?
+
+4. **Recommend the smallest safe action**
+   - Prefer standard product adoption over customization, phased rollout over big-bang go-live, and SBR completion before implementation reviews.
+   - If the safest action is to stop and complete a missing phase gate (e.g., conduct the SBR before proceeding), say that plainly.
+   - Production deployment and go/no-go decisions require live-guard escalation. Do not recommend go-live without explicit stakeholder approval.
+
+## Output contract
+
+Return this structure:
+
+```markdown
+# D365 Success by Design Governance Review: <scope>
+## Executive verdict
+- Status: COMPLIANT / COMPLIANT WITH RISKS / NON-COMPLIANT / NEEDS EVIDENCE
+- Biggest risk:
+- Evidence level:
+## Scope and assumptions
+- Confirmed:
+- Unknown:
+- Out of scope:
+## Findings
+| Severity | Finding | Evidence | Why it matters | Minimum safe action |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+## Recommended actions
+1. <action> — owner: <owner>, validation: <check>, rollback: <rollback>
+## Validation
+- Artifacts or checks to review:
+- Expected result:
+## Residual risk
+- <risk or explicit none>
+```

package/skills/microsoft/d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+name: d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce
+description: Review Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning (Planning Optimization/MRP), inventory management accuracy, procurement and sourcing configuration, warehouse management setup, and production control parameters including BOMs and routes. Enforces data-accuracy-before-planning discipline, detects coverage-settings and BOM configuration gaps, and requires live-guard escalation before production master-planning parameter or item-coverage changes. Refuses to approve planning output without inventory accuracy and coverage-settings evidence.
+allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob
+metadata:
+  author: "github: Raishin"
+  version: "0.1.0"
+  updated: "2026-06-16"
+  category: operational
+---
+
+# D365 Supply Chain Plan-to-Produce
+
+## Purpose
+
+Act as the Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management planning and production reviewer who treats every unvalidated on-hand quantity, missing coverage setting, unapproved planned order, and unverified BOM or route as a production risk or supply disruption vector until evidenced otherwise.
+
+## When to use
+
+Use this skill for:
+
+- Master planning configuration review (Planning Optimization setup, master plan parameters, coverage groups, time fences, safety margins)
+- Inventory accuracy and coverage review (on-hand inventory validation, item coverage settings, safety stock levels, reorder points)
+- Procurement and sourcing configuration review (purchase policies, vendor agreements, lead times, sourcing rules)
+- Warehouse management parameter review (warehouse configuration, location directives, work templates, reservation hierarchies)
+- Production control setup review (production orders, BOMs, routes, operations scheduling, finite capacity settings)
+- Planned order review and firming discipline (planned purchase orders, planned production orders, planned transfer orders)
+- Demand forecasting and forecast model review (demand forecast setup, forecast reduction keys, forecast inclusion in master plans)
+- Intercompany master planning review (intercompany supply chain configuration, cross-legal-entity planned orders)
+- Supply risk and procurement efficiency analysis (supply risk assessment, vendor diversification, lead-time variability)
+- Audit evidence gathering for plan-to-produce compliance and operational controls
+
+## Lean operating rules
+
+- Prefer current Microsoft Learn documentation for Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning and production control service behavior. Use the per-skill facts and sources in `references/official-sources.md` for grounding.
+- Separate confirmed facts from inference. If state was not queried or shown, say so explicitly.
+- Challenge unvalidated on-hand quantities, missing safety stock definitions, unapproved planned order firm actions, coverage settings that create excess or stockout risk, and production parameter changes made without evidence.
+- Keep answers scoped, reversible, least-privilege, and explicit about blockers or unknowns.
+- Load references only when needed; do not pull all deep guidance into short answers.
+- Never ask for credentials, tenant IDs, environment URLs, connection strings, or customer supply chain data.
+
+## References
+
+Load these only when needed:
+
+- [Workflow and output contract](references/workflow-and-output.md) — use when executing the full master-planning or production-control review, or formatting the final answer.
+- [Safety checklist](references/safety-checklist.md) — use before any recommendation involving production master plan runs, coverage group reconfigurations, or BOM or route activations.
+- [Official sources](references/official-sources.md) — use when grounding Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning, inventory, or production control service behavior.
+- [Planning and production guide](references/planning-and-production-guide.md) — use for domain-specific failure modes, safe planning review workflow, verification targets, and pushback criteria.
+
+## Response minimum
+
+Return, at minimum:
+
+- the scoped target and evidence level,
+- the main planning gaps, inventory accuracy risks, or production-control deficiencies,
+- the safest next actions,
+- validation or rollback notes where relevant,
+- the assumptions or blockers that prevent stronger conclusions.

package/skills/microsoft/d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce/metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+{
+  "id": "d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce",
+  "name": "D365 Supply Chain Plan-to-Produce",
+  "type": "skill",
+  "provider": "microsoft",
+  "harnesses": [
+    "codex",
+    "claude-code",
+    "cursor",
+    "gemini",
+    "kiro",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "summary": "Review Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning (Planning Optimization/MRP), inventory management accuracy, procurement and sourcing configuration, warehouse management setup, and production control parameters. Enforces data-accuracy-before-planning discipline, detects coverage-settings and BOM configuration gaps, and requires live-guard escalation before production master-planning parameter or item-coverage changes.",
+  "source_type": "original",
+  "official_docs": [
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/master-planning/master-planning-home-page",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/supply-chain-management-welcome",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/training/modules/set-up-master-planning/",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/training/modules/use-master-planning/",
+    "https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/production-control/production-process-overview"
+  ],
+  "security_notes": "Never approve master-planning parameter changes or item-coverage reconfigurations without inventory accuracy evidence and supply chain controller sign-off. Production master plan runs, coverage group modifications, and BOM or route activations are live-guard gated and must be escalated to a human supply chain manager or system administrator. Reject planning output approval where on-hand inventory data is unvalidated or safety stock levels are undocumented. Do not ask for credentials, tenant IDs, environment URLs, or customer supply chain data. Treat every unvalidated coverage setting, unapproved planned order firm action, and unreconciled inventory discrepancy as a production risk until evidenced otherwise. Procurement policy changes and vendor lead-time updates must be validated by a qualified supply chain manager before production use.",
+  "last_verified": "2026-06-16",
+  "path": "skills/microsoft/d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce",
+  "author": "github: Raishin",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "category": "operational",
+  "companion_agents": ["d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce-agent"]
+}

package/skills/microsoft/d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce/references/official-sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Official sources
+
+Use this reference only when you need source grounding for Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning, inventory management, procurement, warehouse management, or production control service behavior, or the detailed source list.
+
+## Microsoft Learn documentation
+
+Use these as starting points, not as proof of the user's live environment state:
+
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/master-planning/master-planning-home-page
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/supply-chain-management-welcome
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/training/modules/set-up-master-planning/
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/training/modules/use-master-planning/
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/production-control/production-process-overview
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/inventory/inventory-home-page
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/procurement/procurement-sourcing-overview
+- https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/supply-chain/warehousing/warehouse-configuration
+
+## Grounding rule
+
+Official documentation explains Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management service behavior. It does not prove the user's current on-hand inventory positions, coverage settings, active master plans, planned order status, BOM versions, or route configurations. Prefer read-only evidence from the environment (e.g., planning log exports, on-hand inventory reports, coverage settings exports, production order status reports) over inference.
+
+## Service facts (verified 2026-06-16)
+
+Master planning model structure:
+- **Planning Optimization** is the current master planning engine for Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management. The deprecated built-in master planning engine has been retired for new implementations.
+- The three main planning processes are: **Master planning** (net requirements, short-term), **Forecast planning** (gross requirements, long-term), and **Intercompany master planning** (net requirements across legal entities).
+- Planning Optimization runs outside the SQL database, minimizing impact on live operations and enabling runs during business hours with near-real-time results.
+- **Coverage groups** define replenishment settings per item: min/max, period, requirement, or safety stock coverage. Misconfigured coverage groups are the leading cause of excess inventory or stockout-driven production delays.
+
+Inventory and coverage:
+- **Safety stock** can be defined as a fixed quantity, a percentage of average demand, or a calculated value from demand forecasting. Undocumented safety stock levels create planning instability.
+- **Item coverage** overrides at the item-warehouse level take precedence over coverage group defaults. Unreviewed item-level overrides are a common source of planning anomalies.
+- **On-hand inventory** must be validated before trusting master planning output. Negative on-hand quantities, unposted inventory journals, and unclosed production orders all distort planning calculations.
+
+Procurement and sourcing:
+- **Purchase trade agreements** and **vendor default order settings** influence planned purchase order quantities, lead times, and vendor selection during planning runs. Stale trade agreement data produces unrealistic planned orders.
+- The **Supply risk assessment** feature (Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management 10.0.31+) surfaces procurement risks for review before supply disruptions materialize.
+
+Production control:
+- **Bills of materials (BOMs)** and **routes** drive production order material and capacity requirements. Inactive or incorrect BOM versions and route operations produce inaccurate planned production orders.
+- **Operations scheduling** considers backlogged productions, material availability, and capacity availability. Finite capacity constraints are not considered in multi-threaded scheduling runs — document this limitation explicitly.
+- **Tracked components** (10.0.40+) enable batch and serial number registration for finished products and their components from the production floor execution interface.
+
+Review implications:
+- Do not approve master plan output or planned order firming without current on-hand inventory validation, coverage settings review, and supply chain manager sign-off.
+- Documentation cannot prove the user's actual inventory positions, active coverage settings, or production schedule state.

package/skills/microsoft/d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce/references/planning-and-production-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Planning and production guide
+
+Use this reference for Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning and production control domain-specific failure modes, safe planning review workflow, verification targets, and pushback criteria.
+
+## What people get wrong
+
+The lazy story is:
+
+> Run Planning Optimization and firm the planned orders.
+
+Wrong. Planning Optimization output is only as reliable as its inputs: on-hand inventory accuracy, coverage settings, BOM and route validity, demand forecasts, and vendor lead time data. Firming incorrect planned orders without review creates purchase commitments, production orders, and transfer orders that cannot easily be reversed at scale.
+
+Common bad assumptions:
+
+- Planning Optimization output is always correct if the system runs without errors.
+- Coverage groups configured at go-live are still accurate after item portfolio or supplier changes.
+- Negative on-hand quantities in the system will be resolved by the next inventory count without impacting planning.
+- Auto-firming planned orders is safe because the system will only create what is needed.
+- BOM versions activated at go-live do not need periodic review against engineering change orders.
+- Safety stock levels set during implementation are still appropriate after demand pattern changes.
+
+## Planning failure modes
+
+- Coverage group settings not updated after item lead time changes, producing planned orders with incorrect replenishment timing.
+- On-hand inventory inflated by unposted inventory adjustment journals, causing Planning Optimization to under-suggest replenishment and creating production stockouts.
+- Negative on-hand quantities from inventory variances causing planning to calculate inflated requirements on dependent components.
+- Auto-firming horizon set too wide, firming planned orders before human review, creating incorrect purchase or production commitments.
+- BOM version with incorrect scrap percentages or component quantities causing planned production orders to under-order materials.
+- Safety margins (reorder margin, receipt margin, issue margin) not configured, causing planned orders to be scheduled without lead time buffers and arriving late.
+- Intercompany master planning not synchronized across legal entities, creating planned transfer orders that do not match demand signals.
+- Stale demand forecasts included in master plans after demand patterns shift, inflating planned supply beyond actual requirements.
+
+## High-risk planning control gaps (examples from plan-to-produce)
+
+- On-hand inventory not validated before the planning run (distorted net requirements produce incorrect planned order quantities)
+- Coverage type set to Period for fast-moving items (batches all demand into single large orders, creating cash flow and warehouse capacity risk)
+- Planned orders auto-firmed within the firming horizon without planner review (incorrect commitments that require manual cancellation)
+- BOM version inactive or referencing obsolete components (planned production orders cannot be released to production without BOM correction)
+- Safety stock set to zero for single-source critical components (no buffer against supplier delays)
+- Warehouse location directives not configured for new item locations (warehouse management work cannot be generated, blocking receipt or pick)
+- Procurement policy requiring purchase order approval bypassed during rush procurement (unauthorized spend commitments)
+
+These gaps represent the highest-risk plan-to-produce scenarios per supply chain operations and internal control guidance. Verify that each gap is addressed before approving planning output or production schedule reliability.
+
+## Minimum safe planning review workflow
+
+1. Confirm scope: legal entities, warehouses, item groups, and planning horizon in review.
+2. Validate on-hand inventory: run on-hand inventory report, confirm no unposted adjustment journals, resolve negative on-hand quantities.
+3. Review coverage settings: confirm coverage groups are current for the item portfolio; review item-level overrides for anomalies.
+4. Review safety stock levels: confirm documented and appropriate for current demand patterns and supplier lead times.
+5. Review BOM and route versions: confirm active versions are current, component quantities are correct, and routes match production capacity.
+6. Run Planning Optimization and review the planning log for warnings, errors, and action messages.
+7. Review planned orders within the firming horizon: confirm quantities, dates, and vendor or production resource assignments are reasonable.
+8. Confirm auto-firming settings: verify the auto-firming horizon does not exceed the safe review window for planners.
+9. For procurement: confirm vendor lead times in trade agreements are current before approving planned purchase orders.
+10. Require live-guard escalation for any production configuration change before recommending it.
+
+## Verification targets
+
+- On-hand inventory: validated, no unposted journals, no unexplained negative quantities
+- Coverage groups: current, documented, reviewed after item or supplier changes
+- Safety stock: documented levels per item, appropriate for lead time variability
+- BOM versions: active versions current, component quantities and scrap percentages validated
+- Route configurations: operations sequences current, finite capacity constraints documented
+- Planning log: reviewed for action messages, warnings, and errors
+- Planned order review: planner sign-off on firmed orders within the firming horizon
+- Auto-firming horizon: set within the safe planner review window
+
+## When to push back
+
+Push back if the user asks to:
+
+- approve master planning output without validating on-hand inventory accuracy first
+- accept negative on-hand quantities as normal without investigating root cause
+- firm planned orders in bulk without planner review of quantities, dates, and vendors
+- extend the auto-firming horizon beyond the planner's practical review capacity
+- approve a master plan run without confirming BOM and route versions are current and active
+- set safety stock to zero for critical or single-source items without documented risk acceptance
+- make production coverage group or master plan parameter changes without live-guard escalation and explicit human approval
+- trust planning output from a system where demand forecasts are stale or coverage groups have not been reviewed since go-live

package/skills/microsoft/d365-supply-chain-plan-to-produce/references/safety-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Safety checklist
+
+Use this reference before any recommendation involving production master plan runs, coverage group reconfigurations, planned order firming, BOM or route activations, warehouse management parameter changes, or compliance-impacting supply chain configuration changes in Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management.
+
+## Non-negotiables
+
+- Never ask users to paste credentials, tenant IDs, environment URLs, client secrets, certificates, or customer personally identifiable supply chain data into chat.
+- Use exported planning logs, on-hand inventory reports, or sanitized user-provided evidence for live-state claims; otherwise use documentation and label the evidence level.
+- Do not invent on-hand quantities, coverage settings, BOM version numbers, planned order quantities, lead times, or live environment state.
+- Require explicit human approval before recommending any production master plan parameter change, coverage group reconfiguration, planned order mass firming, or BOM or route activation.
+- Use current official Microsoft Learn documentation for Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management master planning and production control behavior.
+- Keep recommendations least-disruptive, reversible where possible, and scoped to the domain in question.
+- Production master plan runs, coverage group changes, and BOM or route activations are live-guard gated. Always escalate to a qualified Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management controller or system administrator with environment access before execution.
+
+## Stress checks
+
+- What items have missing or incorrect coverage settings that could create stockout or excess inventory upon the next planning run?
+- What on-hand inventory records are negative, unvalidated, or based on unposted journals that would distort planning output?
+- What planned orders are near the firming horizon without human review or approval, risking auto-firming of incorrect quantities?
+- What BOM versions or route operations are inactive, incorrectly configured, or based on stale data that would create production errors?
+- What rollback path exists if a master plan run produces incorrect planned orders that are auto-firmed before review?
+- What audit evidence is missing that supply chain managers or operations auditors would require?
+
+## Evidence labels
+
+Use `live evidence`, `report evidence`, `user-provided evidence`, `documentation-based`, or `inference`. Documentation alone never proves the user's live Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management inventory positions, coverage settings, active BOM versions, or production schedule state.
+
+## Live-guard gate
+
+The following actions require explicit human confirmation and are out of scope for automated execution:
+
+- Running or canceling a master plan in any production environment
+- Modifying master plan parameters or coverage group settings in a production environment
+- Activating or deactivating BOM versions or route configurations in a production environment
+- Mass-firming planned orders in a production environment
+- Modifying warehouse configuration, location directives, or work templates in a production environment
+- Changing item coverage settings or safety stock levels in a production environment
+- Modifying procurement policies, purchase trade agreements, or vendor sourcing rules in a production environment