@raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic 2.10.0 → 2.13.0

package/skills/sap/sap-procurement-license-finops-vendor-protocol/references/official-sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+# Official sources — SAP Procurement / License / FinOps / Vendor Protocol
+
+Use this reference when grounding findings on BTP commercial models, consumption billing, license compliance, RISE with SAP contractual terms, SAP Ariba procurement governance, and FinOps cost attribution.
+
+**Evidence level**: documentation-based (SAP Help Portal, SAP product pages, official SAP support resources). No live-system evidence is collected by this protocol.
+
+## BTP commercial models and consumption billing
+
+- SAP BTP commercial models
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/sap-business-technology-platform/commercial-models
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: CPEA, BTPEA, subscription-based, and pay-as-you-go commercial models; credit consumption mechanics; cost attribution to subaccounts
+  why_needed: Primary taxonomy for classifying consumption anomalies, entitlement over-provisioning, and credit burn rate findings
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- Monitoring usage and consumption costs in your global account
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/sap-business-technology-platform/monitoring-usage-and-consumption-costs-in-your-global-account
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: BTP cockpit usage reports, cost monitoring views, subaccount-level consumption breakdown, credit depletion alerts
+  why_needed: Defines the evidence artifacts the FinOps role uses to assess consumption spike events and attribute costs to responsible subaccounts
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- What is BTPEA (BTP Enterprise Agreement)
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/sap-business-technology-platform/what-is-btpea
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: BTPEA structure, cloud credits, minimum commitment, overage mechanics, service coverage scope
+  why_needed: Defines how BTPEA credits are allocated and consumed — required for assessing contractual exposure when actual consumption exceeds commitment
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- Cloud credits
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/sap-business-technology-platform/cloud-credits
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Cloud credit allocation, credit validity periods, credit burn tracking, CPEA credit top-up procedures
+  why_needed: Authoritative reference for credit lifecycle governance — required when assessing credit depletion risk and true-up obligations
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## Entitlements and quota governance
+
+- Entitlements and quotas
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/sap-business-technology-platform/entitlements-and-quotas
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Service entitlements, quota assignment, entitlement distribution to directories and subaccounts, idle entitlement identification
+  why_needed: Defines the entitlement model used by the BTP entitlement governance role to classify over-provisioned or underused service allocations
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## SAP License measurement and compliance
+
+- SAP Customer Relationship and Usage Management (CRUM)
+  https://support.sap.com/en/my-support/systems-installations/crum.html
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: SAP license measurement reporting, named user classification, indirect access assessment, license audit preparation
+  why_needed: Authoritative SAP support resource for license compliance events; defines the measurement methodology used to assess user count compliance
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## RISE with SAP contractual and SLA governance
+
+- RISE with SAP — What is RISE with SAP
+  https://www.sap.com/products/erp/rise-with-sap/what-is-rise-with-sap.html
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: RISE with SAP offer structure, hyperscaler options, included services, migration path, commercial model
+  why_needed: Baseline reference for understanding the contractual scope of RISE — required to assess SLA breach exposure and vendor exit risk
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- RISE with SAP cloud services schedule
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/rise-with-sap/rise-with-sap-cloud-contract/cloud-services-schedule
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: RISE cloud services schedule, SLA definitions, support tiers, hyperscaler-specific terms, contract schedule structure
+  why_needed: Primary contractual reference for RISE SLA assessment and vendor-risk findings; defines the SLA metrics the RISE/SLA vendor-risk role evaluates
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## SAP Ariba procurement governance
+
+- About SAP Ariba Contracts
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/sap-ariba/sap-ariba-contracts/about-sap-ariba-contracts
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Ariba contract management lifecycle, contract compliance monitoring, contract deviation detection, maverick spend identification
+  why_needed: Defines the Ariba contract governance model used by the procurement role to assess value leakage and sourcing compliance
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- About Ariba Sourcing
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/sap-ariba/ariba-sourcing/about-ariba-sourcing
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Ariba sourcing event management, supplier selection, RFx process governance, sourcing compliance
+  why_needed: Reference for assessing sourcing-side value leakage when vendor agreements were established outside controlled Ariba sourcing processes
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## Grounding rule
+
+SAP Help Portal documentation describes the designed commercial model, entitlement mechanics, and contractual framework. It does not prove the current consumption state, license compliance posture, or contract status of the user's SAP estate. Users must supply consumption exports, entitlement inventories, license measurement reports, and contract references for concrete advisory output. All contract-specific terms, pricing, and penalty clauses are user-supplied and must be redacted before submission.

package/skills/sap/sap-procurement-license-finops-vendor-protocol/references/safety-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Safety checklist — SAP Procurement / License / FinOps / Vendor Protocol
+
+Use before finalizing any finding, handoff package, or escalation trigger. This checklist is mandatory for all advisory sessions involving contractual actions, entitlement reductions, or license compliance events.
+
+## Non-negotiables
+
+- Do not recommend reducing entitlement quota or terminating a subscription without first confirming (with the user) that no active service instances are consuming that quota. Reducing below active consumption terminates running workloads.
+- Do not invoke or recommend invoking `sap-btp-entitlement-guarded-operator-agent` from within this protocol. The operator gate is human-mediated only. This protocol produces the package; a human submits it.
+- Do not accept raw SAP contract pricing, commercial unit prices, supplier margins, or penalty amounts without confirming they have been redacted. Refuse and request redaction before proceeding.
+- Do not produce advisory output on a consumption spike without a consumption snapshot. Findings without evidence must be labeled `inference` and explicitly noted as unverified.
+- Do not recommend triggering a RISE exit clause or contract escalation without identifying the named Procurement lead and SAP Account Executive who must co-approve the escalation.
+- Do not classify a finding as `critical` without tracing the specific contractual breach, SLA violation, or license non-compliance from user-provided evidence or official SAP documentation.
+- Do not recommend a license reclassification (reducing named user count) without confirming that the current measurement period has been closed and the measurement report has been finalized. Mid-period reclassification creates compliance exposure.
+
+## What people get wrong
+
+- **Treating CPEA and BTPEA credits as interchangeable**: CPEA and BTPEA have different service coverage scopes, credit validity periods, and top-up mechanics. A consumption spike under one model does not behave identically under the other. Confirm the user's commercial model before assessing burn rate.
+- **Conflating BTP service entitlements with SAP S/4HANA named user licenses**: BTP service entitlements govern cloud service consumption (API calls, instances, memory). SAP named user licenses govern human-user access to SAP applications. They are separately measured, separately billed, and separately audited.
+- **Assuming idle subscriptions can be terminated without dependency checking**: A BTP subscription that shows zero direct consumption may still be depended upon by an integration flow, an extension application, or a trust configuration. Zero consumption does not mean zero dependency.
+- **Recommending credit top-up without checking credit validity dates**: CPEA/BTPEA credits have expiry dates. Purchasing additional credits near the end of the validity period may not resolve the burn issue if credits expire before consumption. Confirm credit validity before recommending a purchase.
+- **Missing auto-renewal windows**: SAP and Ariba contracts often have auto-renewal provisions with notice periods of 30-90 days. Missing the notice window forfeits the option to renegotiate or exit. Always confirm upcoming renewal dates before closing an advisory session involving contract risk.
+- **Conflating vendor lock-in with high switching cost**: Vendor lock-in is an architectural dependency with no documented exit path. High switching cost is a known, quantified risk with a mitigation plan. The RISE/SLA vendor-risk role assesses lock-in; the FinOps role assesses switching cost. Do not merge the two assessments.
+
+## When to push back
+
+- Push back when the user asks for a consumption forecast without providing a consumption snapshot or historical usage trend. Forecasts without data are `inference` and must be labeled as such.
+- Push back when the user asks to recommend a contract exit clause activation without providing the contract reference or exit notice period. Contract actions without contract evidence are out of scope.
+- Push back when the user asks to directly execute an entitlement change, subscription termination, or credit purchase from within this protocol. This protocol is advisory only; redirect the user to the appropriate operator gate with the completed handoff package.
+- Push back when the user provides contract pricing or supplier margin data without redaction. Request redaction before accepting the evidence.
+- Push back when the user asks to confirm a license compliance finding from memory alone. License compliance findings require user-provided measurement reports or SAP CRUM data.
+
+## Evidence labels
+
+- `documentation-based` — grounded in SAP BTP Help Portal, RISE with SAP documentation, SAP Ariba product documentation, or SAP support resources (e.g., CRUM)
+- `user-provided evidence` — consumption exports, entitlement inventories, license measurement reports, contract references, or Ariba compliance reports supplied by the user
+- `inference` — derived reasoning not directly confirmed by official documentation or user evidence; always label explicitly and note the assumption being made

package/skills/sap/sap-procurement-license-finops-vendor-protocol/references/workflow-and-output.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Workflow and output contract — SAP Procurement / License / FinOps / Vendor Protocol
+
+Use this reference for trigger classification, role activation logic, finding severity, handoff sequencing, and output format.
+
+## Trigger classification taxonomy
+
+| Trigger class | Description | Primary role activated |
+|---------------|-------------|----------------------|
+| `consumption-spike` | BTP credits or entitlement quota consumed faster than forecast | sap-license-btp-consumption-finops-agent |
+| `entitlement-change` | New service enablement, quota increase, or entitlement transfer requested | sap-btp-entitlement-guarded-operator-agent (via handoff only) |
+| `license-compliance` | SAP named user audit, indirect access review, or measurement preparation | sap-license-btp-consumption-finops-agent |
+| `rise-sla-event` | SLA breach, support escalation, renewal negotiation, or exit evaluation | sap-rise-sla-vendor-risk-agent |
+| `vendor-lock-in` | Architectural dependency on single vendor without documented exit path | sap-rise-sla-vendor-risk-agent |
+| `contractual-exposure` | Penalty clause, auto-renewal, minimum consumption guarantee, or true-up deadline | sap-procurement-ariba-value-leakage-agent + sap-rise-sla-vendor-risk-agent |
+| `idle-subscription` | BTP subscriptions with zero consumption for 60+ days | sap-license-btp-consumption-finops-agent |
+| `over-provisioning` | Entitlement quota significantly exceeds measured consumption | sap-license-btp-consumption-finops-agent + sap-btp-entitlement-guarded-operator-agent (via handoff) |
+
+## Finding severity classification
+
+| Severity | Criteria |
+|----------|---------|
+| `critical` | Immediate contractual breach, active SLA violation with penalty exposure, license non-compliance with audit in progress, or credit depletion within current billing period |
+| `high` | Projected credit depletion within 30 days, entitlement quota exceeding consumption by more than 300%, RISE exit clause triggering unplanned vendor dependency, or maverick procurement bypassing approved vendor agreements |
+| `medium` | Idle subscriptions consuming credit allocation, entitlement over-provisioning between 150-300% of consumption, upcoming true-up with unresolved user count discrepancy, or missing vendor lock-in mitigation plan |
+| `low` | Best practice deviation: no consumption tagging by cost center, no documented emergency credit top-up procedure, missing quarterly FinOps review cadence |
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. **Classify trigger** — identify which trigger class(es) apply from the user-provided description and evidence.
+2. **Activate relevant roles** — determine which of the four participating agent roles are relevant to this session.
+3. **Inventory evidence** — list all evidence artifacts provided; confirm redaction compliance; request missing mandatory items.
+4. **Produce per-role findings** — for each activated role, produce advisory findings with evidence labels and severity classification.
+5. **Map decision rights** — for each finding that requires action, identify the named human approver from the decision rights table in SKILL.md.
+6. **Gate irreversible actions** — for any finding that involves a listed irreversible action, confirm human approval is required before proceeding; do not pre-approve.
+7. **Sequence handoff** — determine the order in which findings should be resolved (critical first, then high, then medium structural gaps, then low).
+8. **Produce audit package** — assemble the audit package as defined in SKILL.md.
+
+## Output contract
+
+Return:
+
+1. **Trigger classification** — which trigger class(es) activated, with evidence label.
+2. **Roles activated** — which participating agent domains are in scope for this session.
+3. **Evidence inventory** — types of artifacts received; redaction confirmation; any missing mandatory evidence.
+4. **Per-domain findings** — severity, evidence label, and recommended advisory action for each finding.
+5. **Decision rights table** — pending decisions mapped to named approver roles.
+6. **Irreversible-action gate status** — list of any irreversible actions in scope; whether human approval has been confirmed (yes / not yet / not applicable).
+7. **Escalation log** — escalation owners to notify and what they must action.
+8. **Audit package readiness** — complete / incomplete (with blocking items listed).
+9. **Next human step** — the specific action the human must take to proceed (e.g., "Present this package to the Global Account Administrator and FinOps lead for quota reduction approval before submitting to the entitlement operator gate").
+
+## Handoff to guarded-mutating operator gate
+
+This protocol does not invoke `sap-btp-entitlement-guarded-operator-agent` directly. When the audit package is complete and human approval has been confirmed for all irreversible actions, the protocol produces a handoff summary containing:
+
+- Approved action type and scope (quota increase / reduction / subscription termination).
+- Evidence basis for the action.
+- Named approvers who confirmed the action.
+- Timestamp of approval confirmation.
+- Reference to the change record where approval is documented.
+
+A human presents this handoff summary to the operator gate. The operator gate independently verifies approval before executing any mutation.

package/skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+name: sap-release-change-collision-review
+description: Review SAP release and change management for collision risk: transport sequencing and dependency analysis, overtake and overwrite risk between parallel tracks, parallel project conflict detection, retrofit strategy and dual landscape governance, downgrade protection assessment, and ChaRM and SAP Cloud ALM change governance completeness. Advisory only — does not import transports, modify transport requests, or mutate change management configuration.
+allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob WebSearch WebFetch
+metadata:
+  author: "github: Raishin"
+  version: "0.1.0"
+  updated: "2026-06-19"
+  category: delivery
+  lifecycle: experimental
+---
+
+# SAP Release and Change Collision Review
+
+## Purpose
+
+Assess release and change management practices in SAP landscapes for collision, overwrite, and sequencing risk. Review transport sequencing and dependency analysis: whether transport requests are correctly ordered across the landscape route, whether object-level dependencies between transports are documented, and whether sequencing gaps create overwrite risk at target system import time. Evaluate overtake and overwrite risk between parallel transport tracks: whether transports from independent workstreams touch the same repository objects, whether import queue sequencing is controlled, and whether last-write-wins object collisions are identified and mitigated before reaching production. Assess parallel project conflict risk: whether concurrent SAP projects share development or quality systems, whether object ownership is enforced across parallel tracks, and whether a collision detection process exists to surface conflicts before production import. Review retrofit strategy and dual landscape governance: whether changes released to production in a maintenance landscape are retrofitted correctly to the development landscape of the next release, whether the retrofit transport chain is documented and sequenced, and whether dual landscape object integrity is maintained. Assess downgrade protection: whether transport downgrade protection is configured at the system and client level, whether transports moving against the import direction are detected and blocked, and whether emergency correction transports bypass downgrade protection. Evaluate ChaRM (Change and Release Management in SAP Solution Manager) and SAP Cloud ALM change governance completeness: change record coverage, approval workflow configuration, transport-to-change-record traceability, urgent correction and emergency change procedures. This is an advisory collision and governance review. It does not import transports, modify transport requests, change import queue order, or mutate ChaRM or Cloud ALM change management configuration.
+
+## When to use
+
+Use this skill when the user asks to:
+
+- review transport sequencing plans across a multi-track SAP landscape (development → quality → production, or dual landscape with maintenance and main development lines) and identify dependency and overtake risk,
+- assess whether transport requests from parallel SAP projects or workstreams share repository objects and create overwrite collision risk at quality or production import,
+- evaluate the collision detection process: whether object-level transport analysis is performed before production import, whether STMS transport logs and TADIR object usage are reviewed, and whether conflicts are surfaced and resolved before release,
+- review the retrofit strategy in a dual landscape (parallel maintenance and main development landscape): whether retrofit transports are created, sequenced, and imported correctly, and whether object integrity between the two landscape lines is maintained,
+- assess downgrade protection configuration: whether the transport management system is configured with downgrade protection at system and client level, whether any emergency or urgent correction transports bypass downgrade protection, and what the process is for approved bypasses,
+- review ChaRM change governance: whether all transports are linked to approved change records, whether the approval workflow is configured and enforced, whether urgent correction and emergency change procedures include appropriate authorization controls and post-change review,
+- evaluate SAP Cloud ALM change management configuration as a replacement or supplement to ChaRM: change record structure, approval workflow, transport integration, and audit trail completeness,
+- identify release management practices that create unacceptable collision or overwrite risk for production system stability.
+
+## When not to use
+
+- When the user wants to import transports, modify import queue order, or execute change management operations in a live system — this skill does not assist with execution. A separate guarded live-execution agent would be required for transport operations.
+- When the user needs a testing strategy and quality gate review — use `sap-testing-quality-gate-review`.
+- When the user needs a data migration or cutover readiness assessment — use `sap-data-migration-cutover-readiness`.
+- When the user needs go-live hypercare incident command governance review — use `sap-hypercare-incident-commander-review`.
+- When the user needs SAP Cloud ALM operations monitoring or SRE incident governance — use `sap-cloud-alm-sre-incident-review`.
+
+## Advisory-only boundary — explicitly stated
+
+**This skill does not import transports, modify transport requests, alter import queue sequences, or mutate ChaRM or Cloud ALM change management configuration.** It does not:
+
+- connect to any SAP system via RFC, STMS, or ABAP transport tools,
+- view, approve, or execute transport import queues in any SAP landscape,
+- create, modify, or close change records in ChaRM or SAP Cloud ALM change management,
+- access transport logs, TADIR object tables, or system change options from live SAP systems,
+- authorize or imply authorization for production transport releases or emergency change approvals.
+
+All collision and governance assessment is based on transport sequencing documentation, change record descriptions, landscape architecture diagrams, import queue plans, and written descriptions of the change management process supplied by the user. Transport execution is a risk-critical mutating operation that requires a separate, explicitly guarded execution skill with approval gates and rollback controls.
+
+## Lean operating rules
+
+- Overtake risk requires object-level evidence. A claim that "transports are sequenced correctly" is not sufficient to dismiss overwrite risk. Object-level analysis confirming that no two parallel transports modify the same repository object is required to classify overtake risk as managed.
+- Downgrade protection must be active in production. Any SAP production client without downgrade protection configured is a release governance gap regardless of the perceived need. Bypasses must be documented, authorized, and time-limited.
+- Retrofit completeness is a dual landscape integrity requirement. In dual landscapes, every productive change must be retrofitted to the main development line before the next main release. A retrofit backlog is a collision-in-waiting for the next development cycle.
+- Change record coverage must be 100% for production transports. Any transport imported into production without a linked, approved change record is an ungoverned change. Emergency changes are not exempt — they require post-change documentation and approval review.
+- Parallel project collision detection must be proactive, not reactive. Discovering object conflicts at production import is too late. Collision detection must be embedded into the quality system import gate and resolved before production release.
+- Do not fabricate transport object lists, import queue states, or ChaRM change record counts. Only classify findings the user has provided from their actual transport documentation or change management reports.
+- Evidence from official SAP ChaRM, STMS, and Cloud ALM documentation takes precedence over memory or training data.
+
+## Evidence rules
+
+Label all claims with one of:
+
+- `documentation-based` — grounded in SAP ChaRM documentation, STMS transport management documentation, SAP Cloud ALM change management documentation, or SAP Help Portal
+- `user-provided evidence` — transport sequencing plans, import queue descriptions, collision analysis outputs, ChaRM change record summaries, landscape architecture diagrams, retrofit transport lists, or downgrade protection configuration descriptions provided by the user
+- `inference` — derived reasoning not directly confirmed by official docs or user evidence; must always be labeled as such
+
+## Live-environment rules
+
+**This skill does not touch live systems.** There is no RFC connection, STMS access, ABAP transport tool execution, ChaRM API call, or Cloud ALM change management mutation in this skill's execution path. Users must supply transport sequencing plans, import queue documentation, collision analysis outputs, ChaRM or Cloud ALM change governance descriptions, and landscape architecture documentation for this skill to review.
+
+## References
+
+Load only when needed:
+
+- [Workflow and output contract](references/workflow-and-output.md) — collision risk taxonomy, release governance assessment dimensions, retrofit assessment criteria, downgrade protection classification, output format.
+- [Safety checklist](references/safety-checklist.md) — non-negotiables, common change collision review mistakes, advisory boundary enforcement, when to push back.
+- [Official sources](references/official-sources.md) — SAP STMS transport management, ChaRM change governance, SAP Cloud ALM change management, retrofit procedure, downgrade protection configuration.
+
+## Response minimum
+
+Return, at minimum:
+
+- **Problem classification**: landscape topology (single vs. dual landscape, number of parallel tracks), change governance tool (ChaRM / Cloud ALM change management / no formal tool), and collision risk surface (transport overtake / object overwrite / retrofit gap / downgrade protection gap / change record coverage gap).
+- **Evidence used**: documentation-based / user-provided evidence / inference.
+- **Risk level**: production-blocking / high / medium / low per collision risk dimension.
+- **Recommended action**: specific collision mitigation or governance control per finding (implement object-level transport analysis before production import, configure downgrade protection, establish retrofit governance cadence, enforce change record coverage, define parallel track collision detection gate, etc.), grounded in SAP STMS, ChaRM, or Cloud ALM documentation.
+- **Refusal / escalation triggers**: refuse to assess production import safety if no transport sequencing documentation or object-level collision analysis has been provided; do not provide transport execution guidance under any circumstances; escalate immediately if a production transport without a linked change record is identified.
+- **Business impact**: production system instability risk from object overwrites, audit and compliance risk from ungoverned production changes, dual landscape integrity risk from retrofit backlog, release velocity risk from unresolved collision blocking cycles.
+- **Next verification step**: which transport sequencing evidence, object-level analysis output, or change governance documentation must be provided before the collision risk can be assessed as managed.

package/skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "SAP Release and Change Collision Review"
+  short_description: "Advisory review of SAP release and change management for collision risk: transport sequencing, overtake and overwrite risk, parallel project conflicts, retrofit and dual landscape governance, downgrade protection, and ChaRM and Cloud ALM change governance completeness. Does not import transports or mutate change management configuration."
+  default_prompt: "Use $sap-release-change-collision-review to assess the provided SAP release and change management artifacts for collision risk. Classify findings by collision risk dimension (Transport Sequencing / Overtake and Overwrite Risk / Parallel Project Conflict / Retrofit and Dual Landscape / Downgrade Protection / Change Governance Coverage), assign a risk level (production-blocking / high / medium / low), state evidence level (documentation-based / user-provided evidence / inference), and recommend specific collision mitigation or governance controls per finding. Do not import transports, modify change records, or access live SAP systems."
+dependencies:
+  tools:
+    - type: "web"
+      value: "https://help.sap.com/docs/ABAP_PLATFORM_NEW/4a368c163b08418890a406d413933ba/e28fbdf455c3421b8f4f32fdb5bc3e77.html"
+      description: "SAP STMS transport management documentation — primary reference for transport route configuration, import queue management, downgrade protection, and object-level conflict detection"
+    - type: "web"
+      value: "https://help.sap.com/docs/cloud-alm/applicationhelp/change-management"
+      description: "SAP Cloud ALM change management documentation — reference for change record structure, approval workflow, transport integration, and audit trail in Cloud ALM"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: true

package/skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review/metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+  "id": "sap-release-change-collision-review",
+  "name": "SAP Release and Change Collision Review",
+  "type": "skill",
+  "provider": "sap",
+  "harnesses": [
+    "claude-code",
+    "codex",
+    "cursor",
+    "gemini",
+    "kiro",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "summary": "Advisory review of SAP release and change management for collision risk: transport sequencing and dependency analysis, overtake and overwrite risk between parallel tracks, parallel project conflict detection, retrofit strategy and dual landscape governance, downgrade protection assessment, and ChaRM and SAP Cloud ALM change governance completeness. Does not import transports or mutate change management configuration.",
+  "source_type": "original",
+  "category": "delivery",
+  "official_docs": [
+    "https://help.sap.com/docs/ABAP_PLATFORM_NEW/4a368c163b08418890a406d413933ba/e28fbdf455c3421b8f4f32fdb5bc3e77.html",
+    "https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_SOLUTION_MANAGER/56a0e6b74f7044099498e1fb5a4bed99/4e9b0c5d0ed7401de10000000a421937.html",
+    "https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_SOLUTION_MANAGER/56a0e6b74f7044099498e1fb5a4bed99/4a3e5c3b2d4f441be10000000a421937.html",
+    "https://help.sap.com/docs/cloud-alm/applicationhelp/change-management",
+    "https://help.sap.com/docs/cloud-alm/applicationhelp/deployment-management",
+    "https://help.sap.com/docs/ABAP_PLATFORM_NEW/4a368c163b08418890a406d413933ba/fb20c1ea97e64d71a42d7f3def4c41c4.html"
+  ],
+  "security_notes": "Does not connect to any SAP system, access STMS transport queues, execute transport imports, or mutate ChaRM or Cloud ALM change management records. Accepts only user-provided transport sequencing plans, import queue descriptions, collision analysis outputs, ChaRM change record summaries, landscape architecture diagrams, retrofit transport lists, and downgrade protection configuration descriptions. Never accept SAP system credentials, RFC destination parameters, ChaRM API tokens, Cloud ALM admin credentials, or production transport request contents. Does not authorize production transport releases or emergency change approvals — those decisions belong to the customer change authority board.",
+  "last_verified": "2026-06-19",
+  "path": "skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review",
+  "author": "github: Raishin",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "lifecycle": "experimental"
+}

package/skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review/references/official-sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# Official sources — SAP Release and Change Collision Review
+
+Use this reference when grounding transport sequencing assessment, overtake and overwrite risk analysis, parallel project collision review, retrofit governance evaluation, downgrade protection assessment, and ChaRM or Cloud ALM change governance completeness review.
+
+**Evidence level**: documentation-based (SAP Help Portal, SAP STMS documentation, SAP Solution Manager ChaRM documentation, SAP Cloud ALM application help). No live-system evidence is collected by this skill.
+
+## SAP Transport Management System (STMS)
+
+- SAP Transport Management System — Transport Routes and Import Queues
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/ABAP_PLATFORM_NEW/4a368c163b08418890a406d413933ba/e28fbdf455c3421b8f4f32fdb5bc3e77.html
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: STMS transport route configuration, import queue management, transport sequencing, object-level conflict detection, import mode configuration (sequential vs. sorted), system landscape definition
+  why_needed: Primary reference for assessing transport sequencing correctness and import queue collision risk — defines the STMS configuration model used to evaluate whether transport routes, import order controls, and conflict detection capabilities are correctly configured
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- SAP STMS — Downgrade Protection
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/ABAP_PLATFORM_NEW/4a368c163b08418890a406d413933ba/fb20c1ea97e64d71a42d7f3def4c41c4.html
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Transport downgrade protection configuration at system and client level, detection of transports moving against the landscape import direction, emergency transport bypass procedure, downgrade protection error handling
+  why_needed: Authoritative reference for downgrade protection assessment — defines what downgrade protection covers, how it is configured, and what bypass procedures are documented by SAP, used to classify downgrade protection gap findings and evaluate whether emergency transports correctly handle bypass authorization
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## SAP Solution Manager — Change and Release Management (ChaRM)
+
+- ChaRM — Change Request Management Overview
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_SOLUTION_MANAGER/56a0e6b74f7044099498e1fb5a4bed99/4e9b0c5d0ed7401de10000000a421937.html
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: ChaRM change request types (normal change, urgent correction, emergency change), change record lifecycle, approval workflow configuration, transport-to-change-record linkage, change calendar and release cycle governance
+  why_needed: Primary reference for ChaRM change governance assessment — defines the change record types, approval workflow, transport linkage model, and release cycle governance used to classify change record coverage, approval workflow, and urgent correction procedure findings
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- ChaRM — Retrofit and Dual Landscape Management
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_SOLUTION_MANAGER/56a0e6b74f7044099498e1fb5a4bed99/4a3e5c3b2d4f441be10000000a421937.html
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Retrofit procedure in ChaRM for dual landscape (parallel maintenance and main development lines), retrofit transport creation, retrofit sequencing, retrofit completeness tracking, dual landscape object integrity governance
+  why_needed: Authoritative reference for retrofit governance assessment — defines the ChaRM retrofit procedure, transport chain requirements, and integrity controls used to evaluate whether the user's dual landscape retrofit strategy is correctly structured and whether retrofit backlogs represent an integrity risk
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## SAP Cloud ALM — Change Management
+
+- Change Management in SAP Cloud ALM
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/cloud-alm/applicationhelp/change-management
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Change record management in SAP Cloud ALM, change approval workflow, change types and lifecycle states, audit trail for change decisions, integration with transport management
+  why_needed: Required to assess Cloud ALM change governance completeness for organizations transitioning from ChaRM — defines the change record structure, approval workflow, audit trail, and transport integration capabilities in Cloud ALM change management
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+- Deployment Management in SAP Cloud ALM
+  https://help.sap.com/docs/cloud-alm/applicationhelp/deployment-management
+  source_owner: SAP SE
+  topic_supported: Transport deployment pipeline in SAP Cloud ALM, deployment scheduling, deployment approval gates, deployment-to-change-record traceability, deployment audit log
+  why_needed: Required to assess transport-to-change-record traceability in Cloud ALM — defines how deployment management links transport requests to change records and approval decisions, used to evaluate whether the user's Cloud ALM deployment pipeline provides the governance controls needed to replace ChaRM transport linkage
+  evidence_level: primary
+  last_verified: 2026-06-19
+
+## Grounding rule
+
+SAP Help Portal, STMS documentation, ChaRM documentation, and SAP Cloud ALM change management documentation describe the designed transport management model, collision detection capabilities, downgrade protection configuration, retrofit procedure, and change governance workflow. They do not prove which transports are currently in the user's import queues, what objects are modified by the user's parallel transport tracks, whether the user's retrofit backlog is current, or whether the user's change records have 100% transport coverage. Users must supply transport sequencing plans, import queue descriptions, collision analysis outputs, ChaRM or Cloud ALM change record summaries, landscape architecture diagrams, and retrofit transport lists for concrete collision risk assessment.

package/skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review/references/safety-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Safety checklist — SAP Release and Change Collision Review
+
+Use before making any collision risk classification, governance gap finding, or release management recommendation for an SAP landscape.
+
+## Non-negotiables
+
+- Do not access, connect to, or request access to any live SAP system, STMS transport management interface, ChaRM system, SAP Cloud ALM change management tenant, or development landscape.
+- Do not accept or request SAP system credentials, RFC destination parameters, STMS access credentials, ChaRM API tokens, Cloud ALM admin credentials, or transport request contents that include customer business data.
+- Do not import transports, modify import queue order, create or modify change records in ChaRM or Cloud ALM, or provide step-by-step guidance for transport execution operations. This skill is advisory only.
+- Do not authorize or imply authorization for production transport releases, emergency change approvals, or downgrade protection bypasses. Those decisions belong to the customer change authority board with named approvers. This skill can assess whether governance controls are in place based on user-provided evidence, but cannot authorize release decisions.
+- Do not assess production transport safety if no transport sequencing documentation or object-level collision analysis has been provided. Insufficient evidence cannot support a safe release assessment.
+- Do not fabricate transport object lists, import queue states, ChaRM change record counts, or retrofit backlog sizes. Only classify findings the user has provided from their actual transport documentation or change management reports.
+- If a production transport without a linked, approved change record is identified, classify as a production-blocking finding and escalate immediately — do not defer.
+
+## Advisory-only boundary enforcement
+
+If the user asks this skill to:
+- "import this transport,"
+- "release this transport to production,"
+- "approve this emergency change,"
+- "bypass downgrade protection,"
+- "help me modify the import queue,"
+- "tell me if it is safe to import now,"
+
+respond: This skill is an advisory collision and governance reviewer and does not import transports, modify change records, authorize production releases, or evaluate live import queue state. For transport execution or import queue management in a live system, a separate guarded live-execution agent with approval gates and rollback controls would be required.
+
+## What people get wrong
+
+- **Treating transport sequencing by creation date as safe**: STMS by default can import transports in creation timestamp order. Creation order does not reflect object-level dependency order. Transports that were created later may depend on objects modified by earlier transports. Creation-date sequencing without dependency review is a collision risk for complex change sets.
+- **Assuming parallel workstreams have no object overlap**: Development teams working on separate business processes in the same SAP system frequently share common objects — configuration tables, shared programs, BAdI implementations, enhancement spots, or transport-of-copies source objects. Object overlap must be actively confirmed as absent, not assumed.
+- **Treating urgent corrections as exempt from change governance**: Urgent corrections and emergency changes create the highest risk of ungoverned production changes because authorization pressure is highest when time is shortest. The governance process for urgent corrections must be at least as traceable as normal changes, even if the approval cycle is compressed.
+- **Overlooking retrofit as a release risk**: Retrofit backlogs are not merely a bookkeeping concern. Objects diverged between a maintenance production baseline and the main development line will produce conflicts at the next main release transport cycle. A retrofit backlog of more than three to five productive changes represents a material collision risk for the next release.
+- **Confusing downgrade protection bypass with absence of downgrade protection**: Some programs disable downgrade protection to avoid error messages during emergency corrections without understanding that disabling it removes the guardrail for all transports, not just the emergency one. Downgrade protection must be re-enabled after any authorized bypass immediately.
+- **Treating Cloud ALM deployment management as equivalent to ChaRM without validating transport linkage**: Organizations migrating from ChaRM to Cloud ALM change management may lose transport-to-change-record traceability if the deployment management integration is not configured. Transport linkage must be explicitly verified in the Cloud ALM deployment pipeline, not assumed.
+- **Not testing collision detection before production release**: Object-level collision analysis using STMS comparison tools or third-party landscape management tools must be executed before the production import. Discovering an overwrite collision after production import requires emergency correction and rollback planning.
+
+## When to push back
+
+- Push back when the user wants a production release safety assessment without providing transport sequencing documentation or object-level collision analysis results.
+- Push back when downgrade protection bypass is described as a routine practice without documented authorization and post-review.
+- Push back when retrofit backlog exists with no documented catchup plan and the next main release is approaching.
+- Push back when the user describes emergency changes imported to production without any linked change record, even post-hoc documentation.
+- Push back when the user asks for transport execution guidance, import queue modification steps, or live STMS operation instructions.
+- Push back when parallel project object ownership is described as informally managed without a formal registry or collision detection gate.
+- Push back when change governance coverage for production transports is below 100% and the deviation is presented as acceptable without formal risk acceptance.
+
+## Evidence labels
+
+- `documentation-based` — grounded in SAP STMS transport management documentation, ChaRM change governance documentation, SAP Cloud ALM change management documentation, or SAP Help Portal
+- `user-provided evidence` — transport sequencing plans, import queue descriptions, collision analysis outputs, ChaRM or Cloud ALM change record summaries, landscape architecture diagrams, retrofit transport lists, or downgrade protection configuration descriptions provided by the user
+- `inference` — derived reasoning not directly confirmed by official docs or user evidence; must always be labeled as such

package/skills/sap/sap-release-change-collision-review/references/workflow-and-output.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Workflow and output contract — SAP Release and Change Collision Review
+
+Use this reference for all collision risk classification, governance gap assessment, retrofit evaluation, and output formatting.
+
+## Collision risk dimension taxonomy
+
+| Dimension | Description |
+|-----------|-------------|
+| `transport-sequencing` | Transport request order in the import queue; object-level dependency documentation; sequencing gap identification |
+| `overtake-overwrite-risk` | Transports from parallel tracks modifying the same repository objects; last-write-wins collision at import; import queue sequence control |
+| `parallel-project-conflict` | Concurrent SAP projects sharing development or quality systems; object ownership enforcement; cross-project collision detection gate |
+| `retrofit-dual-landscape` | Retrofit transport creation and sequencing for dual landscape; retrofit completeness tracking; dual landscape object integrity |
+| `downgrade-protection` | Downgrade protection configuration at system and client level; emergency bypass detection; bypass authorization and documentation |
+| `change-governance-coverage` | Change record coverage for all production transports; approval workflow enforcement; urgent correction and emergency change procedure |
+
+## Landscape topology classification
+
+| Topology | Description | Collision risk profile |
+|----------|-------------|----------------------|
+| `single-track-three-tier` | Standard DEV → QAS → PRD; single development line | Lower inherent collision risk; risk arises from parallel workstreams within one DEV system |
+| `dual-landscape` | Parallel maintenance (MDEV → MQAS → PRD) and main development (DEV → QAS → PRD) lines sharing production | High retrofit collision risk; requires controlled retrofit procedure to maintain object integrity |
+| `multi-track-shared-target` | Multiple parallel development tracks (feature teams, parallel projects) converging on a shared QAS or PRD | Highest collision risk; requires object-level analysis at every promotion gate |
+| `sandbox-pool` | Multiple sandbox or development tenants with periodic consolidation to a shared QAS | Requires consolidation governance and conflict resolution process at QAS import gate |
+
+## Collision risk status values
+
+Each dimension is assessed as: `MANAGED` / `PARTIALLY-MANAGED` / `UNMANAGED` / `NOT-YET-ASSESSED`
+
+| Risk dimension | Managed criteria | Common unmanaged indicators |
+|----------------|-----------------|----------------------------|
+| `transport-sequencing` | Import queue sorted by dependency; object-level dependency documentation exists; sequencing verified before QAS import | Transports imported in creation date order without dependency review; no object-level analysis performed |
+| `overtake-overwrite-risk` | Object-level analysis performed for all parallel tracks; confirmed no shared object modifications without coordination; import queue sequence controlled | Parallel tracks developed independently with no object ownership check; conflicts discovered at production import |
+| `parallel-project-conflict` | Named object ownership per development object across all parallel tracks; collision detection gate at QAS import; conflict resolution procedure documented | No cross-project object ownership registry; conflicts discovered reactively at import failure |
+| `retrofit-dual-landscape` | All productive changes retrofitted within defined SLA; retrofit transport list maintained and sequenced; dual landscape object comparison performed per release | Retrofit backlog exists with no catchup plan; retrofit transports created but not sequenced; object divergence between lines not tracked |
+| `downgrade-protection` | Downgrade protection active in production client; bypass procedure requires named authorization; all bypasses documented and post-reviewed | Downgrade protection disabled or not configured; emergency transports bypass without documented authorization; no post-bypass audit |
+| `change-governance-coverage` | 100% of production transports linked to approved change records; approval workflow enforced; urgent corrections have post-change review within defined SLA | Transports imported to production without change records; approval workflow bypassed for urgent corrections; no post-emergency-change review |
+
+## Downgrade protection gap classification
+
+| Gap type | Risk level | Description |
+|----------|-----------|-------------|
+| `protection-not-configured` | production-blocking | Downgrade protection not configured at system or client level in production |
+| `protection-bypassed-without-authorization` | production-blocking | Emergency transport bypassed downgrade protection without named authorization and documentation |
+| `bypass-not-post-reviewed` | high | Authorized downgrade protection bypass not reviewed after implementation to confirm risk was as expected |
+| `protection-not-tested` | medium | Downgrade protection configured but never tested to confirm it detects retrograde object moves correctly |
+| `bypass-procedure-undocumented` | medium | No documented procedure for authorized downgrade protection bypass — response in emergency is ad hoc |
+
+## Retrofit assessment criteria
+
+A governed retrofit process in a dual landscape must include:
+
+- Retrofit trigger: definition of which productive changes require retrofit (typically all normal changes and urgent corrections that modify development objects)
+- Retrofit SLA: maximum time allowed between productive import in maintenance landscape and retrofit completion in main development landscape
+- Retrofit transport creation procedure: how retrofit transports are created (manual, ChaRM-assisted, or automated comparison tool)
+- Retrofit sequencing: retrofit transports imported in the same relative order as their originating productive transports
+- Dual landscape integrity check: object comparison between maintenance production baseline and main development line performed before main release
+- Retrofit backlog governance: open retrofit items tracked and prioritized; backlog cleared before next main release
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. **Identify landscape topology** — classify as single-track-three-tier, dual-landscape, multi-track-shared-target, or sandbox-pool.
+2. **Assess transport sequencing** — confirm dependency documentation and import queue sort order control.
+3. **Evaluate overtake and overwrite risk** — determine whether object-level analysis is performed for parallel tracks before QAS and production import.
+4. **Review parallel project collision risk** — assess object ownership governance and cross-project conflict detection gate.
+5. **Assess retrofit governance** — if dual landscape, evaluate retrofit completeness, SLA, sequencing, and integrity check process.
+6. **Evaluate downgrade protection** — confirm configuration status, bypass procedure, and post-bypass review.
+7. **Review change governance coverage** — confirm change record coverage for all production transports, approval workflow enforcement, and urgent correction procedure.
+8. **Assign overall collision risk posture** — `collision-risk-managed` (all dimensions MANAGED) / `conditional` (gaps with documented mitigation) / `collision-risk-unmanaged` (one or more dimensions UNMANAGED with production-blocking or high risk).
+9. **Return output** per the output contract below.
+
+## Output contract
+
+Return:
+
+1. Landscape topology classification and number of parallel tracks
+2. Evidence label per dimension (documentation-based / user-provided evidence / inference)
+3. Collision risk assessment table: dimension, status (MANAGED/PARTIALLY-MANAGED/UNMANAGED/NOT-YET-ASSESSED), gap description
+4. Downgrade protection status and bypass governance assessment
+5. Retrofit governance assessment (dual landscape only): completeness, SLA adherence, backlog status
+6. Change governance coverage: percentage of production transports with linked change records (if quantifiable from user evidence)
+7. Overall collision risk posture: collision-risk-managed / conditional / collision-risk-unmanaged
+8. Risk level per dimension (production-blocking / high / medium / low)
+9. Prioritized collision mitigation recommendations with STMS, ChaRM, or Cloud ALM documentation reference
+10. Escalation trigger if ungoverned production transports, active downgrade protection bypass without authorization, or critical retrofit backlog is identified
+11. Explicit advisory boundary reminder: this review does not import transports, modify change records, or authorize production releases