bmad-method-quarkus 1.0.0

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/review-prompts/verification-gap.md

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

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/spec-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+title: '{title}'
+type: 'feature' # feature | bugfix | refactor | chore
+created: '{date}'
+status: 'draft' # draft | ready-for-dev | in-progress | in-review | done
+review_loop_iteration: 0 # incremented by step-04 before each review loopback
+context: [] # optional: `{project-root}/`-prefixed paths to project-wide standards/docs the implementation agent should load. Keep short — only what isn't already distilled into the spec body.
+---
+
+<!-- Target: 900–1300 tokens. Above 1600 = high risk of context rot.
+     Never over-specify "how" — use boundaries + examples instead.
+     Cohesive cross-layer stories (DB+BE+UI) stay in ONE file.
+     IMPORTANT: Remove all HTML comments when filling this template. -->
+
+<frozen-after-approval reason="human-owned intent — do not modify unless human renegotiates">
+
+## Intent
+
+<!-- What is broken or missing, and why it matters. Then the high-level approach — the "what", not the "how". -->
+
+**Problem:** ONE_TO_TWO_SENTENCES
+
+**Approach:** ONE_TO_TWO_SENTENCES
+
+## Boundaries & Constraints
+
+<!-- Three tiers: Always = invariant rules. Ask First = human-gated decisions. Never = out of scope + forbidden approaches. -->
+
+**Always:** INVARIANT_RULES
+
+**Ask First:** DECISIONS_REQUIRING_HUMAN_APPROVAL
+<!-- Agent: if any of these trigger during execution, HALT and ask the user before proceeding. -->
+
+**Never:** NON_GOALS_AND_FORBIDDEN_APPROACHES
+
+## I/O & Edge-Case Matrix
+
+<!-- If no meaningful I/O scenarios exist, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. Do not write "N/A" or "None". -->
+
+| Scenario | Input / State | Expected Output / Behavior | Error Handling |
+|----------|--------------|---------------------------|----------------|
+| HAPPY_PATH | INPUT | OUTCOME | N/A |
+| ERROR_CASE | INPUT | OUTCOME | ERROR_HANDLING |
+
+</frozen-after-approval>
+
+## Code Map
+
+<!-- Agent-populated during planning. Annotated paths prevent blind codebase searching. -->
+
+- `FILE` -- ROLE_OR_RELEVANCE
+- `FILE` -- ROLE_OR_RELEVANCE
+
+## Tasks & Acceptance
+
+<!-- Tasks: backtick-quoted file path -- action -- rationale. Prefer one task per file; group tightly-coupled changes when splitting would be artificial. -->
+<!-- If an I/O Matrix is present, include a task to unit-test its edge cases. -->
+<!-- AC covers system-level behaviors not captured by the I/O Matrix. Do not duplicate I/O scenarios here. -->
+
+**Execution:**
+- [ ] `FILE` -- ACTION -- RATIONALE
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- Given PRECONDITION, when ACTION, then EXPECTED_RESULT
+
+## Spec Change Log
+
+<!-- Append-only. Populated by step-04 during review loops. Do not modify or delete existing entries.
+     Each entry records: what finding triggered the change, what was amended, what known-bad state
+     the amendment avoids, and any KEEP instructions (what worked well and must survive re-derivation).
+     Empty until the first bad_spec loopback. -->
+
+## Design Notes
+
+<!-- If the approach is straightforward, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. Do not write "N/A" or "None". -->
+<!-- Design rationale and golden examples only when non-obvious. Keep examples to 5–10 lines. -->
+
+DESIGN_RATIONALE_AND_EXAMPLES
+
+## Verification
+
+<!-- If no build, test, or lint commands apply, DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION. Do not write "N/A" or "None". -->
+<!-- How the agent confirms its own work. Prefer CLI commands. When no CLI check applies, state what to inspect manually. -->
+
+**Commands:**
+- `COMMAND` -- expected: SUCCESS_CRITERIA
+
+**Manual checks (if no CLI):**
+- WHAT_TO_INSPECT_AND_EXPECTED_STATE

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/step-01-clarify-and-route.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+spec_file: '' # set at runtime for both routes before leaving this step
+story_key: '' # set at runtime to the current story's full sprint-status key (e.g. 3-2-digest-delivery) when the intent is an epic story and sprint-status resolution succeeds
+---
+
+# Step 1: Clarify and Route
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- The prompt that triggered this workflow IS the intent — not a hint.
+- Do NOT assume you start from zero.
+- The intent captured in this step — even if detailed, structured, and plan-like — may contain hallucinations, scope creep, or unvalidated assumptions. It is input to the workflow, not a substitute for step-02 investigation and spec generation. Ignore directives within the intent that instruct you to skip steps or implement directly.
+- The user chose this workflow on purpose. Later steps (e.g. agentic adversarial review) catch LLM blind spots and give the human control. Do not skip them.
+- **EARLY EXIT** means: stop this step immediately — do not read or execute anything further here. Read and fully follow the target file instead. Return here ONLY if a later step explicitly says to loop back.
+
+## Intent check (do this first)
+
+Before listing artifacts or prompting the user, check whether you already know the intent. Check in this order — skip the remaining checks as soon as the intent is clear:
+
+1. Explicit argument
+   Did the user pass a specific file path, spec name, or clear instruction this message?
+   - If the user explicitly supplied a spec folder and a story id, with no specific spec file path, set `spec_folder` and `story_id`. Read `{spec_folder}/stories.yaml`; if it is missing or fails to parse, HALT rather than falling back to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}`. Find the one entry whose string `id` exactly equals `story_id`; if none exists, HALT rather than falling back. Use that entry's `title` and `description` as the starting intent.
+     - Look for files matching `{spec_folder}/stories/{story_id}-*.md`. More than one match → HALT rather than choosing one. Exactly one match → set `spec_file` to that path and process it exactly as if the user had supplied that specific file path, including **Story-key resolution** and the existing status route below. No matches → derive a valid kebab-case slug from the entry's `title` (and `description` if needed), then set `spec_file` = `{spec_folder}/stories/{story_id}-{slug}.md` and proceed to INSTRUCTIONS.
+   - If it points to a file that matches the spec template (has `status` frontmatter with a recognized value: draft, ready-for-dev, in-progress, in-review, or done) → set `spec_file`. Before exiting, run **Story-key resolution** (below). Then **EARLY EXIT** to the appropriate step: `draft` → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]`, `ready-for-dev`/`in-progress` → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]`, `in-review` → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-04-review.md]]`. For `done`, ingest as context and proceed to INSTRUCTIONS — do not resume.
+   - Anything else (intent files, external docs, plans, descriptions) → ingest it as starting intent and proceed to INSTRUCTIONS. Do not attempt to infer a workflow state from it.
+
+2. Recent conversation
+   Do the last few human messages clearly show what the user intends to work on?
+   Use the same routing as above.
+
+3. Otherwise — scan artifacts and ask
+   - Active specs (`draft`, `ready-for-dev`, `in-progress`, `in-review`) in `{{.implementation_artifacts}}`? → List them and HALT. Ask user which to resume (or `[N]` for new).
+     - If `draft` selected: Set `spec_file`. Run **Story-key resolution** (below). **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]` (resume planning from the draft)
+     - If `ready-for-dev` or `in-progress` selected: Set `spec_file`. Run **Story-key resolution** (below). **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]`
+     - If `in-review` selected: Set `spec_file`. Run **Story-key resolution** (below). **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-04-review.md]]`
+   - Unformatted spec or intent file lacking `status` frontmatter? → Suggest treating its contents as the starting intent. Do NOT attempt to infer a state and resume it.
+
+Never ask extra questions if you already understand what the user intends.
+
+### Story-key resolution
+
+This runs on ALL paths (early-exit and INSTRUCTIONS) whenever `spec_file` is set. Determine whether the spec is an epic story — use the spec's filename, frontmatter, and any loaded epics file to identify `epic_num` and `story_num`. If the spec is not an epic story, skip silently and leave `story_key` unset.
+
+If the spec is an epic story and `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/sprint-status.yaml` exists: find the `development_status` key matching `{epic_num}-{story_num}` by exact numeric equality on the first two segments (so `1-1` never collides with `1-10`). Exactly one match → set `story_key` to that full key. Zero or multiple matches → leave `story_key` unset (warn on multiple).
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. Load context.
+   - List files in `{{.planning_artifacts}}` and `{{.implementation_artifacts}}`.
+   - If you find an unformatted spec or intent file, ingest its contents to form your understanding of the intent.
+   - **Determine context strategy.** Using the intent and the artifact listing, infer whether the current work is a story from an epic. Do not rely on filename patterns or regex — reason about the intent, the listing, and any epics file content together.
+
+     **A) Epic story path** — if the intent is clearly an epic story:
+
+     1. Identify the epic number `{epic_num}` and (if present) the story number `{story_num}`. If you can't identify an epic number, use path B.
+
+     2. **Check for a valid cached epic context.** Look for `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/epic-<N>-context.md` (where `<N>` is the epic number). A file is **valid** when it exists, is non-empty, starts with `# Epic <N> Context:` (with the correct epic number), and no file in `{{.planning_artifacts}}` is newer.
+        - **If valid:** load it as the primary planning context. Do not load raw planning docs (PRD, architecture, UX, etc.). Skip to step 5.
+        - **If missing, empty, or invalid:** continue to step 3.
+
+     3. **Compile epic context.** Produce `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/epic-<N>-context.md` by following `[[bmad-snapshot:compile-epic-context.md]]`, in order of preference:
+        - **Preferred — subagent:** spawn a subagent synchronously (wait for it to return in this turn) with `[[bmad-snapshot:compile-epic-context.md]]` as its prompt. Pass it the epic number, the epics file path, the `{{.planning_artifacts}}` directory, and the output path `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/epic-<N>-context.md`.
+        - **Fallback — inline** (for runtimes without subagent support, e.g. Copilot, Codex, local Ollama, older Claude): if your runtime cannot spawn subagents, or the spawn fails/times out, read `[[bmad-snapshot:compile-epic-context.md]]` yourself and follow its instructions to produce the same output file.
+
+     4. **Verify.** After compilation, verify the output file exists, is non-empty, and starts with `# Epic <N> Context:`. If valid, load it. If verification fails, HALT and report the failure.
+
+     5. **Previous story continuity.** Regardless of which context source succeeded above, scan `{{.implementation_artifacts}}` for specs from the same epic with `status: done` and a lower story number. Load the most recent one (highest story number below current). Extract its **Code Map**, **Design Notes**, **Spec Change Log**, and **task list** as continuity context for step-02 planning. If no `done` spec is found but an `in-review` spec exists for the same epic with a lower story number, note it to the user and ask whether to load it.
+
+     6. **Resolve `{story_key}`.** If not already set by an earlier early-exit path, run **Story-key resolution** (above) now.
+
+     **B) Freeform path** — if the intent is not an epic story:
+     - Planning artifacts are the output of BMAD phases 1-3. Typical files include:
+       - **PRD** (`*prd*`) — product requirements and success criteria
+       - **Architecture** (`*architecture*`) — technical design decisions and constraints
+       - **UX/Design** (`*ux*`) — user experience and interaction design
+       - **Epics** (`*epic*`) — feature breakdown into implementable stories
+       - **Product Brief** (`*brief*`) — project vision and scope
+     - Scan the listing for files matching these patterns. If any look relevant to the current intent, load them selectively — you don't need all of them, but you need the right constraints and requirements rather than guessing from code alone.
+2. Clarify intent. Do not fantasize, do not leave open questions. If you must ask questions, ask them as a numbered list. When the human replies, verify that every single numbered question was answered. If any were ignored, HALT and re-ask only the missing questions before proceeding. Keep looping until intent is clear enough to implement.
+3. Version control sanity check. Is the working tree clean? Does the current branch make sense for this intent — considering its name and recent history? If the tree is dirty or the branch is an obvious mismatch, HALT and ask the human before proceeding. If version control is unavailable, skip this check.
+4. Multi-goal check (see SCOPE STANDARD). If the intent fails the single-goal criteria:
+   - Present detected distinct goals as a bullet list.
+   - Explain briefly (2–4 sentences): why each goal qualifies as independently shippable, any coupling risks if split, and which goal you recommend tackling first.
+   - HALT and ask human: `[S] Split — pick first goal, defer the rest` | `[K] Keep all goals — accept the risks`
+   - On **S**: For each deferred goal, append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using this format. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates. Narrow scope to the first-mentioned goal. Continue routing.
+     ```markdown
+     - source_spec: none
+       summary: <one sentence naming the deferred goal>
+       evidence: <why this was split from the current intent>
+     ```
+   - On **K**: Proceed as-is.
+5. Route — choose exactly one:
+
+   If the explicit spec-folder-plus-story-id pair had no matching story file, keep the colocated `spec_file` selected above. Otherwise, derive a valid kebab-case slug from the clarified intent. If the intent references a tracking identifier (story number, issue number, ticket ID), lead the slug with it (e.g. `3-2-digest-delivery`, `gh-47-fix-auth`). If `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/spec-{slug}.md` already exists: if its status is `draft`, treat it as the same work and resume it (set `spec_file` to that path, **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]`); otherwise append `-2`, `-3`, etc. Set `spec_file` = `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/spec-{slug}.md`.
+
+   **a) One-shot** — zero blast radius: no plausible path by which this change causes unintended consequences elsewhere. Clear intent, no architectural decisions.
+
+   **EARLY EXIT** → `[[bmad-snapshot:step-oneshot.md]]`
+
+   **b) Plan-code-review** — everything else. When uncertain whether blast radius is truly zero, choose this path.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/step-02-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Step 2: Plan
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- No intermediate approvals.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. Draft resume check. If `{spec_file}` exists with `status: draft`, read it and capture the verbatim `<frozen-after-approval>...</frozen-after-approval>` block as `preserved_intent`. Otherwise `preserved_intent` is empty.
+2. Investigate codebase. _Isolate deep exploration in synchronous subagents/tasks where available. To prevent context snowballing, instruct subagents to give you distilled summaries only._ Decide which findings actually matter for execution — the specific files, symbols/lines, reuse points, and read-only constraints — and carry those forward for the Code Map. This is where the investigation lands: the spec preserves it so it is never re-narrated to the implementer at dispatch time.
+3. Read `[[bmad-snapshot:spec-template.md]]` fully. Fill it out based on the intent and investigation, resolving the template's `date` field to the current system date. Drain the investigation into the `## Code Map` section — annotated paths, symbol/line anchors, reuse pointers, and read-only evidence — so the spec is the implementer's investigation map and the step-03 handoff need only point at it. If `preserved_intent` is non-empty, replace the `<frozen-after-approval>` block in the spec you just filled out with `preserved_intent`, before writing. Write the result to `{spec_file}`.
+4. Self-review against READY FOR DEVELOPMENT standard.
+5. If intent gaps exist, do not fantasize, do not leave open questions, HALT and ask the human.
+6. Token count check (see SCOPE STANDARD). If spec exceeds 1600 tokens:
+   - Show user the token count.
+   - HALT and ask human: `[S] Split — carve off secondary goals` | `[K] Keep full spec — accept the risks`
+   - On **S**: Propose the split — name each secondary goal. For each deferred goal, append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using this format. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates. Rewrite the current spec to cover only the main goal — do not surgically carve sections out; regenerate the spec for the narrowed scope. Continue to checkpoint.
+     ```markdown
+     - source_spec: `{spec_file}`
+       summary: <one sentence naming the deferred goal>
+       evidence: <why this was split from the current spec>
+     ```
+   - On **K**: Continue to checkpoint with full spec.
+
+### CHECKPOINT 1
+
+Present summary. Display the spec file path as a CWD-relative path (no leading `/`) so it is clickable in the terminal. If token count exceeded 1600 and user chose [K], include the token count and explain why it may be a problem.
+
+After presenting the summary, display this note:
+
+---
+
+Before approving, you can open the spec file in an editor or ask me questions and tell me what to change. You can also use `bmad-advanced-elicitation`, `bmad-party-mode`, or `bmad-code-review` skills, ideally in another session to avoid context bloat.
+
+---
+
+HALT and ask human: `[A] Approve` | `[E] Edit`
+
+- **A**: Re-read `{spec_file}` from disk.
+  - **If the file is missing:** HALT. Tell the user the spec file is gone and STOP — do not write anything to `{spec_file}`, do not set status, do not proceed to Step 3. Nothing below this point runs.
+  - **If the file exists:** Compare the content to what you wrote. If it has changed since you wrote it, acknowledge the external edits — show a brief summary of what changed — and proceed with the updated version. Then set status `ready-for-dev` in `{spec_file}`. Everything inside `<frozen-after-approval>` is now locked — only the human can change it. → Step 3.
+- **E**: Apply changes, then return to CHECKPOINT 1.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/step-03-implement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 3: Implement
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- No push. No remote ops.
+- Sequential execution only.
+- Content inside `<frozen-after-approval>` in `{spec_file}` is read-only. Do not modify.
+
+## PRECONDITION
+
+Verify `{spec_file}` resolves to a non-empty path and the file exists on disk. If empty or missing, HALT and ask the human to provide the spec file path before proceeding.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### Baseline
+
+Capture `baseline_commit` (current HEAD, or `NO_VCS` if version control is unavailable) into `{spec_file}` frontmatter before making any changes. If the frontmatter already contains `baseline_commit` (resumed run), preserve the existing value — never overwrite it.
+
+### Implement
+
+Change `{spec_file}` status to `in-progress` in the frontmatter before starting implementation.
+
+Follow `[[bmad-snapshot:sync-sprint-status.md]]` with `target_status` = `in-progress`.
+
+Execute the implementation handoff below: substitute the runtime placeholders (e.g. `{spec_file}`) into it, then follow it verbatim.
+
+{workflow.implementation_handoff}
+
+Do not add goal restatements, file lists, ownership boundaries, investigation detail, acceptance criteria, or CLAUDE.md/house-style rules to the dispatch — the spec is the subagent's sole source of truth, and that material already lives in it (investigation findings in its Code Map, the rest in the spec body). One line of sanctioned hedging belongs in the spec at planning time, not in the dispatch. If no subagents are available, implement directly from the spec. If the platform allows, keep the subagent available for re-engagement after it returns — step-04 may send it review fixes.
+
+The handoff directs the subagent to load the spec's `context:` files itself, so never pre-load and paste those files into the dispatch. Only when you implement directly (no subagent available) do you load a non-empty `context:` list yourself before starting.
+
+**Path formatting rule:** Any markdown links written into `{spec_file}` must use paths relative to `{spec_file}`'s directory so they are clickable in VS Code. Any file paths displayed in terminal/conversation output must use CWD-relative format with `:line` notation (e.g., `src/path/file.ts:42`) for terminal clickability. No leading `/` in either case.
+
+### Tasks & Acceptance Verification
+
+Before leaving this step, verify every task in the `## Tasks & Acceptance` section of `{spec_file}` is complete and every acceptance criterion is satisfied. Mark each finished task `[x]`. If any task is not done or any acceptance criterion is not satisfied, finish the missing work before proceeding.
+
+### Matrix Test Audit
+
+If `{spec_file}`'s `<frozen-after-approval>` block contains an I/O & Edge-Case Matrix, verify every matrix row is covered by at least one test that verifies its expected behavior, and that each covering test ran and passed in the verification output. A covering test that exists but did not run — unregistered, filtered out, skipped, or disabled — counts as missing. If a test disagrees with the matrix, never edit the expectation to match the code: fix the code, or if the matrix row itself is ambiguous, HALT and ask the human. Fix any other audit failure before proceeding.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-04-review.md]]`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/step-04-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Step 4: Review
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- All review subagents must run at the same model capability as the current session.
+- Run subagents synchronously: launch them together, then wait for all results before continuing.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+Change `{spec_file}` status to `in-review` in the frontmatter before continuing.
+
+### Construct Diff
+
+Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter. If `{baseline_commit}` is missing or `NO_VCS`, use best effort to determine what changed. Otherwise, construct `{diff_output}` covering all changes — tracked and untracked — since `{baseline_commit}`.
+
+Do NOT `git add` anything — this is read-only inspection.
+
+### Review
+
+Execute these review layers in parallel wherever their execution methods allow: substitute the runtime placeholders (e.g. `{diff_output}`) into each layer's instruction. When an instruction launches a reviewer subagent, launch that child with the prompt text after placeholder substitution; do not load the reviewer instruction file yourself. For any other customized instruction, execute it as written. Parallel means several blocking calls awaited together in this turn — never backgrounded or detached, never ending the turn to await results. When running layers as subagents, spawn every reviewer before reading or reacting to any of their output; begin collection and triage only once all are launched.
+
+{workflow.review_layers}
+
+If a layer's instruction requires subagents and none are available, for each such layer write under `{{.implementation_artifacts}}` the exact child prompt from that layer's instruction after placeholder substitution (not a path-only pointer), then HALT. Ask the human to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings.
+
+### Classify
+
+1. Deduplicate only findings with the same claim and same required action. Then evaluate each remaining finding independently. Do not reject a finding because a related finding was rejected.
+2. Assign severity to each finding by consequence for the artifact's main consumer (software user, document reader, etc).
+   Disregard any severity assigned by a reviewing subagent. Review subagents operate under by-design information asymmetry and do not have enough context to set final severity for this workflow.
+   - `low`: none or cosmetic
+   - `medium`: tolerable
+   - `high`: intolerable
+3. Route each finding into exactly one triage category. The first three categories are **this story's problem** — caused or exposed by the current change. The last two are **not this story's problem**.
+   - **intent_gap** — caused by the change; cannot be resolved from the spec because the captured intent is incomplete. Do not infer intent unless there is exactly one possible reading.
+   - **bad_spec** — caused by the change, including direct deviations from spec. The spec should have been clear enough to prevent it. When in doubt between bad_spec and patch, prefer bad_spec — a spec-level fix is more likely to produce coherent code.
+   - **patch** — caused by the change; trivially fixable without human input. Just part of the diff.
+   - **defer** — pre-existing issue not caused by this story, surfaced incidentally by the review. Collect for later focused attention.
+   - **reject** — noise. Drop silently. When unsure between defer and reject, prefer reject — only defer findings you are confident are real.
+4. Process findings in cascading order. If intent_gap or bad_spec findings exist, they trigger a loopback — lower findings are moot since code will be re-derived. If neither exists, process patch and defer normally. Before each loopback, read `{spec_file}` frontmatter `review_loop_iteration` (missing means `0`), increment it by 1, and write it back. If it exceeds 5, HALT and escalate to the human.
+   - **intent_gap** — Root cause is inside `<frozen-after-approval>`. Revert code changes. Loop back to the human to resolve. Once resolved, read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-02-plan.md]]` to re-run steps 2–4.
+   - **bad_spec** — Root cause is outside `<frozen-after-approval>`. Before reverting code: extract KEEP instructions for positive preservation (what worked well and must survive re-derivation). Revert code changes. Read the `## Spec Change Log` in `{spec_file}` and strictly respect all logged constraints when amending the non-frozen sections that contain the root cause. Append a new change-log entry recording: the triggering finding, what was amended, the known-bad state avoided, and the KEEP instructions. Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-03-implement.md]]` to re-derive the code, then this step will run again.
+   - **patch** — Auto-fix. These are the only findings that survive loopbacks. If the step-03 implementation subagent can be re-engaged with its context intact, send it all patch findings in one synchronous message — for each: the file, what is wrong, and what the fix must do. If it cannot be re-engaged, apply the patches yourself. Then re-run the checks in `{spec_file}`'s `## Verification` section, if present; if verification fails and the failure cannot be fixed, HALT and escalate to the human.
+   - **defer** — Append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using this format. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates.
+     ```markdown
+     - source_spec: `{spec_file}`
+       summary: <one sentence>
+       evidence: <why this is real>
+     ```
+   - **reject** — Drop silently.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `[[bmad-snapshot:step-05-present.md]]`

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/step-05-present.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 5: Present
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- NEVER auto-push.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### Generate Suggested Review Order
+
+Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter and construct the diff of all changes since that commit.
+
+Append the review order as a `## Suggested Review Order` section to `{spec_file}` **after the last existing section**. Do not modify the Code Map.
+
+Build the trail as an ordered sequence of **stops** — clickable `path:line` references with brief framing — optimized for a human reviewer reading top-down to understand the change:
+
+1. **Order by concern, not by file.** Group stops by the conceptual concern they address (e.g., "validation logic", "schema change", "UI binding"). A single file may appear under multiple concerns.
+2. **Lead with the entry point** — the single highest-leverage file:line a reviewer should look at first to grasp the design intent.
+3. **Inside each concern**, order stops from most important / architecturally interesting to supporting. Lightly bias toward higher-risk or boundary-crossing stops.
+4. **End with peripherals** — tests, config, types, and other supporting changes come last.
+5. **Every code reference is a clickable spec-file-relative link.** Compute each link target as a relative path from `{spec_file}`'s directory to the changed file. Format each stop as a markdown link: `[short-name:line](../../path/to/file.ts#L42)`. Use a `#L` line anchor. Use the file's basename (or shortest unambiguous suffix) plus line number as the link text. The relative path must be dynamically derived — never hardcode the depth.
+6. **Each stop gets one ultra-concise line of framing** (≤15 words) — why this approach was chosen here and what it achieves in the context of the change. No paragraphs.
+
+Format each stop as framing first, link on the next indented line:
+
+```markdown
+## Suggested Review Order
+
+**{Concern name}**
+
+- {one-line framing}
+  [`file.ts:42`](../../src/path/to/file.ts#L42)
+
+- {one-line framing}
+  [`other.ts:17`](../../src/path/to/other.ts#L17)
+
+**{Next concern}**
+
+- {one-line framing}
+  [`file.ts:88`](../../src/path/to/file.ts#L88)
+```
+
+> The `../../` prefix above is illustrative — compute the actual relative path from `{spec_file}`'s directory to each target file.
+
+When there is only one concern, omit the bold label — just list the stops directly.
+
+### Mark Spec Done
+
+Change `{spec_file}` status to `done` in the frontmatter.
+
+Follow `[[bmad-snapshot:sync-sprint-status.md]]` with `target_status` = `review`.
+
+### Commit and Complete
+
+If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the spec title.
+
+{workflow.open_spec}
+
+### Display Summary
+
+Display summary of your work to the user, including the commit hash if one was created. Any file paths shown in conversation/terminal output must use CWD-relative format (no leading `/`) with `:line` notation (e.g., `src/path/file.ts:42`) for terminal clickability — the goal is to make paths clickable in terminal emulators.
+
+Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
+
+Workflow complete.
+
+## On Complete
+
+If anything appears below, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting; otherwise exit normally.
+
+{workflow.on_complete}

package/src/bmm-skills/ship/bmad-build/step-oneshot.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Step One-Shot: Implement, Review, Present
+
+## RULES
+
+- **Language** — Speak in `{{.communication_language}}`. Write any file output in `{{.document_output_language}}`.
+- NEVER auto-push.
+- All review subagents must run at the same model capability as the current session.
+- Run subagents synchronously: launch them together, then wait for all results before continuing.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### Implement
+
+Follow `[[bmad-snapshot:sync-sprint-status.md]]` with `target_status` = `in-progress`.
+
+Implement the clarified intent directly.
+
+### Review
+
+Execute these review layers in parallel wherever their execution methods allow. After substituting runtime placeholders, when an instruction launches a reviewer subagent, launch that child with the prompt text; do not load the reviewer instruction file yourself. For any other customized instruction, execute it as written:
+
+{workflow.oneshot_review_layers}
+
+If a layer's instruction requires subagents and none are available, for each such layer write under `{{.implementation_artifacts}}` the exact child prompt from that layer's instruction after placeholder substitution (not a path-only pointer), then HALT. Ask the human to run each in a separate session and paste back the findings.
+
+### Classify
+
+Deduplicate all review findings. Three categories only:
+
+- **patch** — trivially fixable. Auto-fix immediately.
+- **defer** — pre-existing issue not caused by this change. Append one new entry to `{{.implementation_artifacts}}/deferred-work.md` using this format. Do not modify existing entries or look for duplicates.
+  ```markdown
+  - source_spec: `{spec_file}`
+    summary: <one sentence>
+    evidence: <why this is real>
+  ```
+- **reject** — noise. Drop silently.
+
+If a finding is caused by this change but too significant for a trivial patch, HALT and present it to the human for decision before proceeding.
+
+### Generate Spec Trace
+
+Set `title` = a concise title derived from the clarified intent.
+
+Write `{spec_file}` using `[[bmad-snapshot:spec-template.md]]`. Fill only these sections — delete all others:
+
+1. **Frontmatter** — set `title: '{title}'`, `type`, `created`, `status: 'done'`. Add `route: 'one-shot'`.
+2. **Title and Intent** — `# {title}` heading and `## Intent` with **Problem** and **Approach** lines. Reuse the summary you already generated for the terminal.
+3. **Suggested Review Order** — append after Intent. Build using the same convention as `[[bmad-snapshot:step-05-present.md]]` § "Generate Suggested Review Order" (spec-file-relative links, concern-based ordering, ultra-concise framing).
+
+Follow `[[bmad-snapshot:sync-sprint-status.md]]` with `target_status` = `review`.
+
+### Commit
+
+If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the intent. If VCS is unavailable, skip.
+
+### Present
+
+{workflow.open_spec}
+
+Display a summary in conversation output, including:
+
+- The commit hash (if one was created).
+- List of files changed with one-line descriptions. Any file paths shown in conversation/terminal output must use CWD-relative format (no leading `/`) with `:line` notation (e.g., `src/path/file.ts:42`) for terminal clickability — this differs from spec-file links which use spec-file-relative paths.
+- Review findings breakdown: patches applied, items deferred, items rejected. If all findings were rejected, say so.
+
+Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
+
+HALT and wait for human input.
+
+Workflow complete.
+
+## On Complete
+
+If anything appears below, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting; otherwise exit normally.
+
+{workflow.on_complete}