cc-dev-template 0.1.53 → 0.1.55

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "cc-dev-template",
-  "version": "0.1.53",
+  "version": "0.1.55",
   "description": "Structured AI-assisted development framework for Claude Code",
   "bin": {
     "cc-dev-template": "./bin/install.js"

package/src/skills/project-setup/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+name: project-setup
+description: Set up standardized dev environment with Makefile, scripts, and hooks.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# Project Setup
+
+Configure this project with a standardized development environment.
+
+Read `references/step-1-analyze.md`.

package/src/skills/project-setup/references/step-1-analyze.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Step 1: Analyze the Project
+
+Understand the project before making changes.
+
+## Detect Project Type
+
+Check for language indicators:
+
+| Language | Indicators |
+|----------|------------|
+| TypeScript/JavaScript | `package.json`, `tsconfig.json`, `.ts`/`.tsx` files |
+| Go | `go.mod`, `go.sum`, `.go` files |
+| C# | `*.csproj`, `*.sln`, `.cs` files |
+
+If multiple languages exist, this may be a monorepo. Note each component.
+
+## Check for Submodules
+
+Run `git submodule status`. If submodules exist, ask the user:
+- Which submodule(s) to set up
+- Whether to orchestrate multiple submodules together under one `make dev`
+
+## Check Existing Setup
+
+Look for:
+- `Makefile` in root
+- `scripts/` directory with `build.sh`, `dev.sh`, `test.sh`
+- `.claude/settings.json` with Stop hook
+- `.git/hooks/pre-commit`
+
+If partial setup exists, show the user what's already configured vs what's missing. Ask whether to:
+- Complete the missing pieces
+- Replace existing setup entirely
+- Verify existing setup works correctly
+
+## Gather Project-Specific Details
+
+For the detected language(s), identify:
+- Build command (e.g., `npm run build`, `go build ./...`, `dotnet build`)
+- Dev server command and typical port
+- Test command (e.g., `npm test`, `go test ./...`, `dotnet test`)
+- Lint/format commands (e.g., `npm run lint`, `go fmt ./...`)
+
+If anything is unclear, ask the user.
+
+## When Ready
+
+Once you have:
+- Confirmed project type
+- Resolved any submodule questions
+- Determined what needs to be created vs already exists
+- Gathered language-specific commands
+
+Read `references/step-2-makefile.md`.

package/src/skills/project-setup/references/step-2-makefile.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Step 2: Create Makefile and Scripts
+
+Create the Makefile and supporting scripts. The Makefile stays minimal—it just calls scripts.
+
+## Create the Makefile
+
+Create `Makefile` in the project root:
+
+```makefile
+.PHONY: build dev stop test
+
+build:
+	@./scripts/build.sh
+
+dev:
+	@./scripts/dev.sh start
+
+stop:
+	@./scripts/dev.sh stop
+
+test:
+	@./scripts/test.sh
+```
+
+## Create scripts/build.sh
+
+Purpose: Compile, typecheck, lint. Return minimal output. No binaries.
+
+Requirements:
+- Run all quality checks for the detected language (typecheck, lint, format check)
+- Exit 0 on success with single "Build passed" message
+- Exit non-zero on failure with only the relevant error lines
+- Strip ANSI colors and limit output to essential errors
+
+## Create scripts/dev.sh
+
+Purpose: Start/stop dev server as background process. Track state via PID file.
+
+Requirements:
+- Accept `start` or `stop` argument
+- On `start`:
+  - Check if already running (PID file exists and process alive)
+  - If running, print "Already running on port XXXX" and exit 0
+  - If not running, start in background
+  - Pipe all output to `agent.log` in project root
+  - Truncate `agent.log` on each start (fresh logs)
+  - Save PID to `.dev.pid`
+  - Print "Started on port XXXX. Logs: agent.log"
+- On `stop`:
+  - Kill process from PID file
+  - Clean up PID file
+  - Print "Stopped"
+
+## Create scripts/test.sh
+
+Purpose: Run ALL tests. Return pass/fail with minimal output.
+
+Requirements:
+- Run the full test suite (unit, integration, all test types)
+- On success: print "All tests passed"
+- On failure: print only failing test names and brief error messages
+- Filter verbose test output to extract just failures
+
+## Make Scripts Executable
+
+```bash
+chmod +x scripts/build.sh scripts/dev.sh scripts/test.sh
+```
+
+## When Ready
+
+Once all scripts are created and executable, read `references/step-3-hooks.md`.

package/src/skills/project-setup/references/step-3-hooks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Step 3: Configure Hooks
+
+Set up the stop hook and pre-commit hook.
+
+## Stop Hook
+
+The stop hook runs `make build` when the agent finishes. If build fails, the agent continues working to fix it (up to 3 attempts).
+
+### Create .claude/settings.json
+
+```json
+{
+  "hooks": {
+    "Stop": [
+      {
+        "hooks": [
+          {
+            "type": "command",
+            "command": "node .claude/hooks/quality-gate.cjs"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+If `.claude/settings.json` already exists, merge the hooks configuration.
+
+### Create the Quality Gate Hook
+
+Copy the template from this skill's `templates/quality-gate.cjs` to `.claude/hooks/quality-gate.cjs`.
+
+Adapt it for this project:
+- Update the `checks` array to match project language
+- For TypeScript: tsc, eslint, tests
+- For Go: go build, go vet, go test
+- For C#: dotnet build, dotnet test
+
+The hook:
+1. Reads JSON from stdin (required by hook protocol)
+2. Runs `make build`
+3. If build passes: returns `{ "decision": "approve" }`
+4. If build fails: returns `{ "decision": "block", "reason": "..." }` with concise error info
+5. Checks `stop_hook_active` field—if true and still failing, approve to prevent infinite loops
+
+## Pre-Commit Hook
+
+Create `.git/hooks/pre-commit`:
+
+```bash
+#!/bin/bash
+set -e
+
+echo "Running pre-commit checks..."
+
+# Run build checks
+if ! make build; then
+    echo "Build failed. Commit aborted."
+    exit 1
+fi
+
+# Run tests
+if ! make test; then
+    echo "Tests failed. Commit aborted."
+    exit 1
+fi
+
+echo "Pre-commit checks passed."
+```
+
+Make it executable:
+
+```bash
+chmod +x .git/hooks/pre-commit
+```
+
+## When Ready
+
+Once hooks are configured, read `references/step-4-documentation.md`.

package/src/skills/project-setup/references/step-4-documentation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+# Step 4: Update CLAUDE.md
+
+Document the make commands so the agent knows how to use them.
+
+## If CLAUDE.md Exists
+
+Add a "Dev Commands" section. Place it near the top, after any project overview.
+
+## If CLAUDE.md Does Not Exist
+
+Create it with the dev commands section plus a minimal project description.
+
+## Content to Add
+
+```markdown
+## Dev Commands
+
+| Command | Purpose |
+|---------|---------|
+| `make dev` | Start dev server (background). Logs to `agent.log`. |
+| `make stop` | Stop the dev server. |
+| `make build` | Run all build checks (typecheck, lint). No output on success. |
+| `make test` | Run all tests. Shows only failures. |
+
+- `agent.log` is cleared on each `make dev` — check it for errors after changes
+- Stop hook runs `make build` automatically when you finish working
+- Pre-commit hook runs `make build` and `make test` before each commit
+```
+
+Adjust the table if this project has additional commands or specific notes.
+
+## When Ready
+
+Once CLAUDE.md is updated, read `references/step-5-verify.md`.

package/src/skills/project-setup/references/step-5-verify.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Step 5: Verify Setup
+
+Run each command to confirm everything works.
+
+## Verification Steps
+
+### 1. Build
+
+```bash
+make build
+```
+
+Expected: exits 0, minimal output (or single success message).
+
+If it fails, fix the underlying issue—missing dependencies, syntax errors, etc.
+
+### 2. Test
+
+```bash
+make test
+```
+
+Expected: exits 0 with "All tests passed" or similar.
+
+If tests fail, that's fine—report them to the user but the setup itself is working.
+
+### 3. Dev Server
+
+```bash
+make dev
+```
+
+Expected: prints port and confirms it's running in background.
+
+Then verify it's actually running:
+
+```bash
+make dev
+```
+
+Expected: prints "Already running on port XXXX".
+
+### 4. Stop
+
+```bash
+make stop
+```
+
+Expected: prints "Stopped" or similar.
+
+Then verify it actually stopped:
+
+```bash
+make dev
+```
+
+Expected: starts fresh (not "already running").
+
+### 5. agent.log
+
+Check that `agent.log` exists and contains server output.
+
+## Report Results
+
+Tell the user:
+- Which commands succeeded
+- Any issues encountered
+- Whether the project is ready to use
+
+If everything passed, the setup is complete.

package/src/skills/project-setup/templates/quality-gate.cjs

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+/**
+ * Quality gate stop hook.
+ * Runs make build when the agent stops. Blocks if build fails (up to 3 retries).
+ *
+ * Adapt the `checks` array for your project's language/tooling.
+ */
+const { execSync } = require('child_process');
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+
+const PROJECT_ROOT = process.cwd();
+const MAX_RETRIES = 3;
+const RETRY_FILE = path.join(PROJECT_ROOT, '.claude', 'hooks', '.quality-gate-retries');
+
+function approve() {
+  cleanupRetryFile();
+  console.log(JSON.stringify({ decision: 'approve' }));
+  process.exit(0);
+}
+
+function block(reason) {
+  console.log(JSON.stringify({ decision: 'block', reason }));
+  process.exit(0);
+}
+
+function cleanupRetryFile() {
+  try {
+    if (fs.existsSync(RETRY_FILE)) {
+      fs.unlinkSync(RETRY_FILE);
+    }
+  } catch (e) {
+    // Ignore cleanup errors
+  }
+}
+
+function getRetryCount() {
+  try {
+    if (fs.existsSync(RETRY_FILE)) {
+      return parseInt(fs.readFileSync(RETRY_FILE, 'utf8').trim(), 10) || 0;
+    }
+  } catch (e) {
+    // Ignore read errors
+  }
+  return 0;
+}
+
+function incrementRetryCount() {
+  const count = getRetryCount() + 1;
+  const dir = path.dirname(RETRY_FILE);
+  if (!fs.existsSync(dir)) {
+    fs.mkdirSync(dir, { recursive: true });
+  }
+  fs.writeFileSync(RETRY_FILE, String(count));
+  return count;
+}
+
+// Strip ANSI color codes
+function stripAnsi(str) {
+  return str.replace(/\x1B\[[0-9;]*[a-zA-Z]/g, '');
+}
+
+// Extract key error lines from output
+function extractErrors(output, maxLines = 10) {
+  const clean = stripAnsi(output);
+  const lines = clean.split('\n');
+
+  const errorLines = lines.filter(line =>
+    line.toLowerCase().includes('error') ||
+    line.includes('FAIL') ||
+    line.includes('failed') ||
+    line.match(/:\d+:\d+/) // file:line:col pattern
+  );
+
+  return errorLines.slice(0, maxLines);
+}
+
+async function main() {
+  try {
+    // Read hook input from stdin
+    let input = '';
+    for await (const chunk of process.stdin) {
+      input += chunk;
+    }
+
+    JSON.parse(input); // Validate JSON (content not needed)
+
+    // Check retry count
+    const retries = getRetryCount();
+    if (retries >= MAX_RETRIES) {
+      // Max retries reached, approve to prevent infinite loop
+      approve();
+      return;
+    }
+
+    // Run make build
+    try {
+      execSync('make build', {
+        cwd: PROJECT_ROOT,
+        encoding: 'utf8',
+        stdio: 'pipe',
+        timeout: 120000
+      });
+
+      // Build passed
+      approve();
+    } catch (error) {
+      const output = (error.stdout || '') + '\n' + (error.stderr || '');
+      const errors = extractErrors(output);
+
+      // Increment retry count
+      const currentRetry = incrementRetryCount();
+
+      let message = `Build failed (attempt ${currentRetry}/${MAX_RETRIES})`;
+      if (errors.length > 0) {
+        message += ':\n' + errors.map(e => `  ${e}`).join('\n');
+      }
+
+      if (currentRetry >= MAX_RETRIES) {
+        message += '\n\nMax retries reached. Fix manually and run `make build`.';
+        // Still block this time, but next time will approve
+      }
+
+      block(message);
+    }
+  } catch (e) {
+    // Parse error or other issue - approve to fail open
+    approve();
+  }
+}
+
+main();

package/src/skills/spec-interview/SKILL.md

@@ -6,6 +6,23 @@ argument-hint: <spec-name>
 
 # Spec Interview
 
+## Context Hygiene
+
+**IMPORTANT:** During planning, protect the context window. Never write code. Never search, grep, or read files directly.
+
+Use Explorer subagents for ALL codebase research:
+- Explorer uses a faster, cheaper model
+- Explorer works better with focused tasks
+- Explorer returns only relevant findings, keeping your context clean
+
+**Layered approach:**
+1. First: One Explorer for broad understanding of a system
+2. Then: Multiple Explorers in parallel for deep dives on specifics
+
+Spin up as many Explorers as needed. There is no downside to parallel subagents.
+
+**Why this matters:** Search results and file contents that aren't directly relevant cause context rot, degrading planning quality. Subagents curate information before it enters your context.
+
 ## What To Do Now
 
 If an argument was provided, use it as the feature name. Otherwise, ask what feature to spec out.

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-1-opening.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Establish understanding of the feature before diving into details.
 
 ## Opening Questions
 
-Ask one or two questions at a time. Follow up on anything unclear.
+Use AskUserQuestion to gather information. Ask one or two questions at a time. Follow up on anything unclear.
 
 Start with:
 - What problem does this feature solve?
@@ -16,6 +16,6 @@ Then explore:
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Move to `references/step-2-deep-dive.md` when:
+Move to `references/step-2-ui-ux.md` when:
 - The core problem and user goal are clear
 - Success criteria are understood at a high level

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-2-ui-ux.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# Step 2: UI/UX Design
+
+If the feature has no user interface, skip to `references/step-3-deep-dive.md`.
+
+## Determine Design Direction
+
+Before any wireframes, establish the visual approach. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm:
+
+**Product context:**
+- What does this product need to feel like?
+- Who uses it? (Power users want density, occasional users want guidance)
+- What's the emotional job? (Trust, efficiency, delight, focus)
+
+**Design direction options:**
+- Precision & Density — tight spacing, monochrome, information-forward (Linear, Raycast)
+- Warmth & Approachability — generous spacing, soft shadows, friendly (Notion, Coda)
+- Sophistication & Trust — cool tones, layered depth, financial gravitas (Stripe, Mercury)
+- Boldness & Clarity — high contrast, dramatic negative space (Vercel)
+- Utility & Function — muted palette, functional density (GitHub)
+
+**Color foundation:**
+- Warm (creams, warm grays) — approachable, human
+- Cool (slate, blue-gray) — professional, serious
+- Pure neutrals (true grays) — minimal, technical
+
+**Layout approach:**
+- Dense grids for scanning/comparing
+- Generous spacing for focused tasks
+- Sidebar navigation for multi-section apps
+- Split panels for list-detail patterns
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present 2-3 options and get the user's preference.
+
+## Create ASCII Wireframes
+
+Sketch the interface in ASCII. Keep it rough—this is for alignment, not pixel precision.
+
+```
+Example:
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Page Title                [Action ▾]   │
+├──────────┬──────────────────────────────┤
+│ Nav Item │  Content Area                │
+│ Nav Item │  ┌─────────────────────────┐ │
+│ Nav Item │  │ Component               │ │
+│          │  └─────────────────────────┘ │
+└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+Create wireframes for:
+- Primary screen(s) the user will interact with
+- Key states (empty, loading, error, populated)
+- Any modals or secondary views
+
+Present each wireframe to the user. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm or iterate.
+
+## Map User Flows
+
+For each primary action, document the interaction sequence:
+
+1. Where does the user start?
+2. What do they click/type?
+3. What feedback do they see?
+4. Where do they end up?
+
+Format as simple numbered steps under each flow name.
+
+## When to Move On
+
+Proceed to `references/step-3-deep-dive.md` when:
+- Design direction is agreed upon
+- Wireframes exist for primary screens
+- User has confirmed the layout approach

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-3-deep-dive.md

@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
-# Step 2: Deep Dive
+# Step 3: Deep Dive
 
 Cover all specification areas through conversation. Update `docs/specs/<name>/spec.md` incrementally as information emerges.
 
+Use AskUserQuestion whenever requirements are ambiguous or multiple approaches exist. Present options with tradeoffs and get explicit decisions.
+
 ## Areas to Cover
 
 ### Intent & Goals
@@ -13,7 +15,17 @@ Cover all specification areas through conversation. Update `docs/specs/<name>/sp
 - External services, APIs, or libraries
 - Data flows in and out
 
-Spawn exploration subagents to investigate the codebase when integration questions arise. They return only relevant findings.
+**IMPORTANT:** Use Explorer subagents for all codebase investigation. Never search or read files directly.
+
+Layered approach:
+1. First Explorer: "How does [system] work at a high level?"
+2. Parallel Explorers: Deep dive into specific components identified in step 1
+
+Example: To understand auth integration:
+- Explorer 1: "How does authentication work in this codebase?"
+- Then parallel: "How are auth tokens validated?", "Where is the user session stored?", "What middleware handles protected routes?"
+
+No assumptions. If you don't know how something works, send an Explorer to find out.
 
 ### Data Model
 - Entities and relationships
@@ -74,4 +86,4 @@ Write to `docs/specs/<name>/spec.md` with this structure:
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Move to `references/step-3-research-needs.md` when all areas have been covered and the spec document is substantially complete.
+Move to `references/step-4-research-needs.md` when all areas have been covered and the spec document is substantially complete.

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-4-research-needs.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Step 3: Identify Research Needs
+# Step 4: Identify Research Needs
 
 Before finalizing, determine if implementation requires unfamiliar paradigms.
 
@@ -12,10 +12,16 @@ This is not about whether Claude knows how to do something in general. It's abou
 
 Review the spec's integration points, data model, and behavior sections.
 
-For each significant implementation element:
-1. Search the codebase for existing examples of this pattern
-2. If found → this paradigm is established, no research needed
-3. If not found → this is a new paradigm requiring research
+**IMPORTANT:** Use Explorer subagents to check for existing patterns. Never search directly.
+
+For each significant implementation element, spawn an Explorer:
+- "Does this codebase have an existing example of [pattern]? If yes, where and how does it work?"
+
+Spin up multiple Explorers in parallel for different patterns.
+
+Based on Explorer findings:
+- If pattern exists → paradigm is established, no research needed
+- If not found → this is a new paradigm requiring research
 
 Examples of "new paradigm" triggers:
 - Using a library not yet in the project
@@ -27,18 +33,18 @@ Examples of "new paradigm" triggers:
 
 For each new paradigm identified:
 1. State what needs research and why (no existing example found)
-2. Ask the user if they want to proceed with research, or if they have existing knowledge to share
+2. Use AskUserQuestion to ask if they want to proceed with research, or if they have existing knowledge to share
 3. If proceeding, invoke the `research` skill for that topic
 
 Wait for research to complete before continuing. The research output goes to `docs/research/` and informs implementation.
 
 ## If No Research Needed
 
-State that all paradigms have existing examples in the codebase. Proceed to `references/step-4-finalize.md`.
+State that all paradigms have existing examples in the codebase. Proceed to `references/step-5-verification.md`.
 
 ## When to Move On
 
-Proceed to `references/step-4-finalize.md` when:
+Proceed to `references/step-5-verification.md` when:
 - All new paradigms have been researched, OR
 - User confirmed no research is needed, OR
 - All patterns have existing codebase examples

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-5-verification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# Step 5: Verification Planning
+
+Every acceptance criterion needs a specific, executable verification method. The goal: autonomous implementation with zero ambiguity about whether something works.
+
+## Verification Methods
+
+### UI Verification: agent-browser
+
+For any criterion involving visual output or user interaction, use Vercel's agent-browser CLI:
+
+```
+agent-browser open <url>              # Navigate to page
+agent-browser snapshot                # Get accessibility tree with refs
+agent-browser click @ref              # Click element by ref
+agent-browser fill @ref "value"       # Fill input by ref
+agent-browser get text @ref           # Read text content
+agent-browser screenshot file.png     # Capture visual state
+agent-browser close                   # Close browser
+```
+
+Example verification for "Dashboard shows signup count":
+1. `agent-browser open /admin`
+2. `agent-browser snapshot`
+3. `agent-browser get text @signup-count`
+4. Assert returned value is a number
+
+### Automated Tests
+
+For logic, data, and API behavior, specify the exact test:
+- Unit tests for pure functions
+- Integration tests for API endpoints
+- End-to-end tests for critical flows
+
+Include the test file path: `pnpm test src/convex/featureFlags.test.ts`
+
+### Database/State Verification
+
+For data persistence criteria:
+1. Perform the action
+2. Query the database directly
+3. Assert expected state
+
+### Manual Verification (Fallback)
+
+If no automated method exists, document exactly what to check. Flag these as candidates for future automation.
+
+## Update Each Acceptance Criterion
+
+Review every acceptance criterion in the spec. Add a verification method using this format:
+
+```markdown
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Dashboard loads in under 2s
+  **Verify:** `agent-browser open /admin`, measure time to snapshot ready
+
+- [ ] Flag toggles persist across refresh
+  **Verify:** `pnpm test src/convex/featureFlags.test.ts` (toggle persistence test)
+
+- [ ] Signup chart shows accurate counts
+  **Verify:** `agent-browser get text @chart-total`, compare to `npx convex run users:count`
+```
+
+## Confirm With User
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to review verification methods with the user:
+- "For [criterion], I'll verify by [method]. Does that prove it works?"
+- Flag any criteria where verification seems insufficient
+
+The standard: if the agent executes the verification and it passes, the feature is done. No human checking required.
+
+## When to Move On
+
+Proceed to `references/step-6-finalize.md` when every acceptance criterion has a verification method and the user agrees each method proves the criterion works.

package/src/skills/spec-interview/references/step-6-finalize.md

@@ -1,19 +1,52 @@
-# Step 4: Finalize
+# Step 6: Finalize
 
-Review the spec for completeness and hand off.
+Review the spec for completeness and soundness, then hand off.
 
-## Review for Gaps
+## Run Both Reviews
 
-Invoke the `spec-review` skill, specifying which spec to review. It analyzes the spec and returns feedback.
+Invoke both skills in parallel, specifying the spec path:
+- `spec-review` — checks completeness, format, and implementation readiness
+- `spec-sanity-check` — checks logic, assumptions, and unconsidered scenarios
 
-If gaps are found, ask follow-up questions to address them. Repeat until review passes.
+Both return findings to you. They do not modify the spec directly.
+
+## Curate the Findings
+
+Synthesize findings from both reviews. Some findings may be:
+- Critical issues that must be addressed
+- Valid suggestions worth considering
+- Pedantic or irrelevant items to skip
+
+For each finding, form a recommendation: address it or skip it, and why.
+
+## Walk Through With User
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present findings in batches (2-3 at a time). For each finding:
+- State what the review found
+- Give your recommendation (always include a recommended option)
+- Let user decide: fix, skip, or something else
+
+Track two lists:
+- **Addressed**: findings the user chose to fix
+- **Intentionally skipped**: findings the user chose to ignore
+
+After walking through all findings, make the approved changes to the spec.
+
+## Offer Another Pass
+
+Use AskUserQuestion: "Do you want to run the reviews again?"
+
+If yes, invoke both reviews again with additional context:
+- "We already ran a review. These changes were made: [list]. These findings were intentionally skipped: [list]. Look for anything new we haven't considered."
+
+Repeat the curate → walk through → offer another pass cycle until user is satisfied.
 
 ## Complete the Interview
 
-Once review passes:
+Once user confirms no more review passes needed:
 
 1. Show the user the final spec
-2. Confirm they are satisfied
+2. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm they are satisfied
 3. Ask if they want to proceed to task breakdown
 
 If yes, invoke `spec-to-tasks` and specify which spec to break down.

package/src/skills/spec-review/SKILL.md

@@ -11,8 +11,10 @@ context: fork
 
 1. **Find the spec** - Use the path from the prompt if provided. Otherwise, find the most recently modified file in `docs/specs/`. If no specs exist, inform the user and stop.
 2. **Read the spec file**
-3. **Evaluate against the checklist below**
-4. **Return structured feedback using the output format**
+3. **Find all CLAUDE.md files** - Search for every CLAUDE.md in the project (root and subdirectories)
+4. **Read all CLAUDE.md files** - These contain project constraints and conventions
+5. **Evaluate against the checklist below** - Including CLAUDE.md alignment
+6. **Return structured feedback using the output format**
 
 ## Completeness Checklist
 
@@ -25,22 +27,33 @@ A spec is implementation-ready when ALL of these are satisfied:
 - [ ] **Integration points mapped** - What existing code this touches is documented
 - [ ] **Core behavior specified** - Main flows are step-by-step clear
 - [ ] **Acceptance criteria exist** - Testable requirements are listed
+- [ ] **Verification methods defined** - Every acceptance criterion has a specific way to verify it (test command, agent-browser steps, or explicit check)
+- [ ] **No ambiguities** - Nothing requires interpretation; all requirements are explicit
+- [ ] **No unknowns** - All information needed for implementation is present; nothing left to discover
+- [ ] **CLAUDE.md alignment** - Spec does not conflict with constraints in any CLAUDE.md file
 
 ### Should Have (Gaps that cause implementation friction)
 
 - [ ] **Edge cases covered** - Error conditions and boundaries are addressed
 - [ ] **External dependencies documented** - APIs, libraries, services are listed
 - [ ] **Blockers section exists** - Missing credentials, pending decisions are called out
+- [ ] **UI/UX wireframes exist** - If feature has a user interface, ASCII wireframes are present
+- [ ] **Design direction documented** - If feature has UI, visual approach is explicit (not assumed)
 
 ### Implementation Readiness
 
-The test: could someone implement this feature completely hands-off, with zero questions?
+The test: could an agent implement this feature with ZERO assumptions? If the agent would need to guess, interpret, or discover anything, the spec is not ready.
 
 Flag these problems:
 - Vague language ("should handle errors appropriately" — HOW?)
 - Missing details ("integrates with auth" — WHERE? HOW?)
 - Unstated assumptions ("uses the standard pattern" — WHICH pattern?)
 - Blocking dependencies ("needs API access" — DO WE HAVE IT?)
+- Unverifiable criteria ("dashboard works correctly" — HOW DO WE CHECK?)
+- Missing verification ("loads fast" — WHAT COMMAND PROVES IT?)
+- Implicit knowledge ("depends on how X works" — SPECIFY IT)
+- Unverified claims ("the API returns..." — HAS THIS BEEN CONFIRMED?)
+- CLAUDE.md conflicts (spec proposes X but CLAUDE.md requires Y — WHICH IS IT?)
 
 ## Output Format
 
@@ -54,6 +67,9 @@ Return the review as:
 ### Missing (Blocking)
 - [Item]: [What's missing and why it blocks implementation]
 
+### CLAUDE.md Conflicts
+- [Constraint from CLAUDE.md]: [How the spec conflicts with it]
+
 ### Gaps (Non-blocking but should address)
 - [Item]: [What's unclear or incomplete]
 

package/src/skills/spec-sanity-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: spec-sanity-check
+description: This skill should be used alongside spec-review to catch logic gaps and incorrect assumptions. Invoked when the user says "sanity check this spec", "does this plan make sense", or "what am I missing". Also auto-invoked by spec-interview during finalization.
+argument-hint: <spec-path>
+context: fork
+---
+
+# Spec Sanity Check
+
+Provide a "fresh eyes" review of the spec. This is different from spec-review — you're not checking format or completeness. You're checking whether the plan will actually work.
+
+## Find the Spec
+
+Use the path from the prompt if provided. Otherwise, find the most recently modified file in `docs/specs/`. If no specs exist, inform the user and stop.
+
+## Read and Understand
+
+Read the entire spec. Understand what is being built and how.
+
+## Ask These Questions
+
+For each section of the spec, challenge it:
+
+### Logic Gaps
+- Does the described flow actually work end-to-end?
+- Are there steps that assume a previous step succeeded without checking?
+- Are there circular dependencies?
+- Does the order of operations make sense?
+
+### Incorrect Assumptions
+- Are there assumptions about how existing systems work that might be wrong?
+- Are there assumptions about external APIs, libraries, or services?
+- Are there assumptions about data formats or availability?
+- Use Explorer subagents to verify assumptions against the actual codebase
+
+### Unconsidered Scenarios
+- What happens in edge cases not explicitly covered?
+- What happens under load or at scale?
+- What happens if external dependencies fail?
+- What happens if data is malformed or missing?
+
+### Implementation Pitfalls
+- Are there common bugs this approach would likely introduce?
+- Are there security implications not addressed?
+- Are there performance implications not addressed?
+- Are there race conditions or timing issues?
+
+### The "What If" Test
+- What if [key assumption] is wrong?
+- What if [external dependency] changes?
+- What if [data volume] is 10x what we expect?
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return findings as:
+
+```
+## Sanity Check: [Feature Name]
+
+### Status: [SOUND | CONCERNS]
+
+### Logic Issues
+- [Issue]: [Why this is a problem]
+
+### Questionable Assumptions
+- [Assumption]: [Why this might be wrong] [Suggestion to verify]
+
+### Unconsidered Scenarios
+- [Scenario]: [What could go wrong]
+
+### Potential Pitfalls
+- [Pitfall]: [How to avoid]
+
+### Recommendation
+[Either "Plan is sound" or specific concerns to address]
+```
+
+**SOUND**: No significant concerns found.
+**CONCERNS**: Issues that should be addressed before implementation.