agentic-code 0.6.7 → 0.6.8

package/.agents/skills/documentation-criteria/SKILL.md

@@ -97,6 +97,10 @@ description: "Guides PRD, ADR, Design Doc, and Work Plan creation. Use when: pla
 - Complete enumeration of integration points
 - Data contract clarification
 - **Agreement checklist** (agreements with stakeholders)
+- **Code inspection evidence** (inspected files/functions during investigation)
+- **Field propagation map** (when fields cross component boundaries)
+- **Data representation decision** (when introducing new structures)
+- **Applicable standards** (explicit/implicit classification)
 - **Prerequisite ADRs** (including common ADRs)
 
 **Required Structural Elements**:
@@ -148,6 +152,7 @@ API Contract Change Matrix:
 ## Creation Process
 
 1. **Problem Analysis**: Change scale assessment, ADR condition check
+   - Identify explicit and implicit project standards before investigation
 2. **ADR Option Consideration** (ADR only): Compare 3+ options, specify trade-offs
 3. **Creation**: Use templates, include measurable conditions
 4. **Approval**: "Accepted" after review enables implementation

package/.agents/tasks/technical-design.md

@@ -102,12 +102,31 @@ Create ADR and Design Documents.
 □ Acceptance criteria defined and verifiable
 □ References cited
 □ Complexity assessment completed (if medium/high, rationale justifies necessity)
+□ Standards identification gate completed
+□ Code inspection evidence recorded
+□ Data representation decision documented (when new structures introduced)
+□ Field propagation map included (when fields cross boundaries)
 
 ## Mandatory Process Before Document Creation [STRICT COMPLIANCE]
 
 **These steps MUST be completed to pass the entry gate:**
 
-### 1. Existing Documentation Investigation [REQUIRED - CANNOT SKIP]
+### 1. Standards Identification Gate [REQUIRED - CANNOT SKIP]
+Must be performed before any investigation:
+
+1. **Identify Project Standards**
+   - Scan project configuration, rule files, and existing code patterns
+   - Classify each: **Explicit** (documented) or **Implicit** (observed pattern only)
+
+2. **Record in Design Doc**
+   - List in "Applicable Standards" section with `[explicit]`/`[implicit]` tags
+   - Implicit standards require user confirmation before design proceeds
+
+3. **Alignment Rule**
+   - Design decisions must reference applicable standards
+   - Deviations require documented rationale
+
+### 2. Existing Documentation Investigation [REQUIRED - CANNOT SKIP]
 Must be performed before any design:
 
 1. **PRD Investigation** (if applicable)
@@ -128,7 +147,7 @@ Must be performed before any design:
    - Check for superseded ADRs that might need updating
    - List applicable ADRs in "Prerequisite ADRs" section
 
-### 2. Existing Code Investigation [REQUIRED - CANNOT SKIP]
+### 3. Existing Code Investigation [REQUIRED - CANNOT SKIP]
 Must be performed after documentation review:
 
 1. **Implementation File Path Verification**
@@ -153,7 +172,24 @@ Must be performed after documentation review:
    - Clearly document similar functionality search results
    - Record adopted decision and rationale
 
-### 3. Agreement Checklist【MOST IMPORTANT】
+5. **Code Inspection Evidence**
+   - Record all inspected files and key functions in "Code Inspection Evidence" section of Design Doc
+   - Each entry must state relevance (similar functionality / integration point / pattern reference)
+
+### 4. Data Representation Decision [REQUIRED WHEN APPLICABLE]
+When the design introduces or significantly modifies data structures:
+
+1. **Reuse-vs-New Assessment**
+   - Search for existing structures with overlapping purpose
+   - Evaluate: semantic fit, responsibility fit, lifecycle fit, boundary/interop cost
+
+2. **Decision Rule**
+   - All criteria satisfied → Reuse existing
+   - 1-2 criteria fail → Evaluate extension with adapter
+   - 3+ criteria fail → New structure justified
+   - Record decision and rationale in Design Doc
+
+### 5. Agreement Checklist【MOST IMPORTANT】
 Must be performed at the beginning of Design Doc creation:
 
 1. **List agreements with user in bullet points**
@@ -167,7 +203,7 @@ Must be performed at the beginning of Design Doc creation:
    - [ ] Confirm no design contradicts agreements
    - [ ] If any agreements not reflected, state reason
 
-### 4. Latest Information Research [BLOCKING REQUIREMENT]
+### 6. Latest Information Research [BLOCKING REQUIREMENT]
 
 **Web research MUST use SESSION_BASELINE_DATE year - NEVER hardcoded years:**
 - Format: "[technology] best practices [YEAR from SESSION_BASELINE_DATE]"
@@ -283,9 +319,19 @@ unknowns:
 - [ ] Constraints: [limitations]
 - [ ] Performance: [requirements]
 
+#### Applicable Standards
+- [ ] [Standard/convention] `[explicit]` - Source: [config / rule file / documentation path]
+- [ ] [Observed pattern] `[implicit]` - Evidence: [file paths] - Confirmed: [Yes/No]
+
 ## Existing Codebase Analysis
 [Investigation results, similar functionality, decision]
 
+### Code Inspection Evidence
+
+| File/Function | Relevance |
+|---------------|-----------|
+| [path:function] | [similar functionality / integration point / pattern reference] |
+
 ## Requirements
 [Functional, Non-functional, Constraints]
 
@@ -313,6 +359,17 @@ unknowns:
 ### Integration Point Analysis [MANDATORY for feature modifications]
 [Use format from section above]
 
+### Data Representation Decision (When Introducing New Structures)
+
+| Criterion | Assessment | Reason |
+|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| Semantic Fit | [Yes/No] | [Does existing structure's meaning align?] |
+| Responsibility Fit | [Yes/No] | [Same bounded context?] |
+| Lifecycle Fit | [Yes/No] | [Same creation/mutation/deletion timing?] |
+| Boundary/Interop Cost | [Low/Medium/High] | [Cost of sharing across boundaries?] |
+
+**Decision**: [reuse / extend / new] — [rationale in 1-2 sentences]
+
 ## Implementation Details
 
 ### Technology Stack
@@ -321,6 +378,12 @@ unknowns:
 ### Change Impact Map
 [Target, Direct impact, Indirect impact]
 
+### Field Propagation Map (When Fields Cross Boundaries)
+
+| Field | Boundary | Status | Detail |
+|-------|----------|--------|--------|
+| [field name] | [Component A → B] | preserved / transformed / dropped | [logic or reason] |
+
 ## Testing Strategy
 [Unit and integration test approaches]
 

package/.agents/tasks/technical-document-review.md

@@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ Confirm document type and determine validation baseline:
 
 ### Stage 2: Structure Compliance Check
 
+#### Gate 0: Structural Existence (must pass before quality review)
+Verify required elements exist per template. Gate 0 failure on any item → `blocked`.
+
 #### For Design Doc
 
 | Required Section | Check Item |
@@ -68,13 +71,19 @@ Confirm document type and determine validation baseline:
 | Design Summary (Meta) | risk_level, constraints, unknowns defined |
 | Agreement Checklist | Scope/Non-scope/Constraints documented |
 | Existing Codebase Analysis | Investigation results included |
+| Applicable Standards | Explicit/implicit classification listed |
+| Code Inspection Evidence | Inspected files and functions recorded |
 | Acceptance Criteria | Specific, testable conditions |
 | Architecture | Approach, components, data flow defined |
 | Integration Points | External dependencies identified |
+| Field Propagation Map | Present when fields cross boundaries |
 | Testing Strategy | Test approach outlined |
 | Risks and Mitigations | Technical risks documented |
 | References | Sources cited |
 
+#### Gate 1: Quality Assessment (only after Gate 0 passes)
+Proceed to Stage 3-5 only after all Gate 0 structural checks pass.
+
 #### For ADR
 
 | Required Section | Check Item |
@@ -104,8 +113,10 @@ Confirm document type and determine validation baseline:
 | Specificity | Concrete, not vague | Abstract statements without examples |
 | Testability | Acceptance criteria verifiable | Cannot be tested |
 | Consistency | No internal contradictions | Sections contradict each other |
-| Completeness | All required sections present | Missing sections |
+| Completeness | All required sections present with depth | Missing sections |
 | Clarity | Unambiguous language | Multiple interpretations possible |
+| Rationale Verification | Design decisions reference identified standards | Unverifiable rationale without standard reference |
+| Code Inspection Evidence | Inspected files relevant to design scope | Key related files missing from evidence |
 
 ### Stage 4: Failure Scenario Review (Design Docs Only)
 
@@ -153,17 +164,25 @@ When sources exist:
 - [ ] Terminology used consistently
 - [ ] Scope aligned throughout document
 
+### Design Doc Additional Validation
+- [ ] Gate 0 structural existence checks pass before quality review
+- [ ] Design decision rationales verified against identified standards/patterns
+- [ ] Code inspection evidence covers files relevant to design scope
+- [ ] Field propagation map present when fields cross component boundaries
+
 ## Output Format
 
 ### Status Determination
 
 **approved**:
+- Gate 0: All structural existence checks pass
 - All required sections present and complete
 - Content is specific and testable
 - Failure scenarios covered (Design Docs)
 - No high severity issues
 
 **needs_revision**:
+- Gate 0: All structural existence checks pass
 - Some sections incomplete
 - Content quality issues exist
 - Failure scenarios partially covered
@@ -171,6 +190,7 @@ When sources exist:
 - Complexity level is medium/high but rationale does not justify necessity (Design Docs)
 
 **blocked**:
+- Gate 0: Any structural existence check fails OR
 - Critical sections missing
 - Major contradictions found
 - Document type unclear
@@ -186,6 +206,9 @@ verdict: approved | needs_revision | blocked
 completenessRate: [X]%
 
 [STRUCTURE COMPLIANCE]
+gate0:
+  status: pass | fail
+  missing_elements: []
 requiredSections: [count]
 presentSections: [count]
 missingSections:

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "agentic-code",
-  "version": "0.6.7",
+  "version": "0.6.8",
   "description": "Task-oriented context engineering framework for LLM coding agents - AGENTS.md standard compliant",
   "files": [
     "bin/",