claude-code-orchestrator-kit 1.0.0

package/.claude/commands/speckit.checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
+---
+description: Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
+---
+
+## Checklist Purpose: "Unit Tests for English"
+
+**CRITICAL CONCEPT**: Checklists are **UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING** - they validate the quality, clarity, and completeness of requirements in a given domain.
+
+**NOT for verification/testing**:
+
+- ❌ NOT "Verify the button clicks correctly"
+- ❌ NOT "Test error handling works"
+- ❌ NOT "Confirm the API returns 200"
+- ❌ NOT checking if code/implementation matches the spec
+
+**FOR requirements quality validation**:
+
+- ✅ "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined for all card types?" (completeness)
+- ✅ "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" (clarity)
+- ✅ "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" (consistency)
+- ✅ "Are accessibility requirements defined for keyboard navigation?" (coverage)
+- ✅ "Does the spec define what happens when logo image fails to load?" (edge cases)
+
+**Metaphor**: If your spec is code written in English, the checklist is its unit test suite. You're testing whether the requirements are well-written, complete, unambiguous, and ready for implementation - NOT whether the implementation works.
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+$ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
+
+## Execution Steps
+
+1. **Setup**: Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json` from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list.
+   - All file paths must be absolute.
+   - For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
+
+2. **Clarify intent (dynamic)**: Derive up to THREE initial contextual clarifying questions (no pre-baked catalog). They MUST:
+   - Be generated from the user's phrasing + extracted signals from spec/plan/tasks
+   - Only ask about information that materially changes checklist content
+   - Be skipped individually if already unambiguous in `$ARGUMENTS`
+   - Prefer precision over breadth
+
+   Generation algorithm:
+   1. Extract signals: feature domain keywords (e.g., auth, latency, UX, API), risk indicators ("critical", "must", "compliance"), stakeholder hints ("QA", "review", "security team"), and explicit deliverables ("a11y", "rollback", "contracts").
+   2. Cluster signals into candidate focus areas (max 4) ranked by relevance.
+   3. Identify probable audience & timing (author, reviewer, QA, release) if not explicit.
+   4. Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria.
+   5. Formulate questions chosen from these archetypes:
+      - Scope refinement (e.g., "Should this include integration touchpoints with X and Y or stay limited to local module correctness?")
+      - Risk prioritization (e.g., "Which of these potential risk areas should receive mandatory gating checks?")
+      - Depth calibration (e.g., "Is this a lightweight pre-commit sanity list or a formal release gate?")
+      - Audience framing (e.g., "Will this be used by the author only or peers during PR review?")
+      - Boundary exclusion (e.g., "Should we explicitly exclude performance tuning items this round?")
+      - Scenario class gap (e.g., "No recovery flows detected—are rollback / partial failure paths in scope?")
+
+   Question formatting rules:
+   - If presenting options, generate a compact table with columns: Option | Candidate | Why It Matters
+   - Limit to A–E options maximum; omit table if a free-form answer is clearer
+   - Never ask the user to restate what they already said
+   - Avoid speculative categories (no hallucination). If uncertain, ask explicitly: "Confirm whether X belongs in scope."
+
+   Defaults when interaction impossible:
+   - Depth: Standard
+   - Audience: Reviewer (PR) if code-related; Author otherwise
+   - Focus: Top 2 relevance clusters
+
+   Output the questions (label Q1/Q2/Q3). After answers: if ≥2 scenario classes (Alternate / Exception / Recovery / Non-Functional domain) remain unclear, you MAY ask up to TWO more targeted follow‑ups (Q4/Q5) with a one-line justification each (e.g., "Unresolved recovery path risk"). Do not exceed five total questions. Skip escalation if user explicitly declines more.
+
+3. **Understand user request**: Combine `$ARGUMENTS` + clarifying answers:
+   - Derive checklist theme (e.g., security, review, deploy, ux)
+   - Consolidate explicit must-have items mentioned by user
+   - Map focus selections to category scaffolding
+   - Infer any missing context from spec/plan/tasks (do NOT hallucinate)
+
+4. **Load feature context**: Read from FEATURE_DIR:
+   - spec.md: Feature requirements and scope
+   - plan.md (if exists): Technical details, dependencies
+   - tasks.md (if exists): Implementation tasks
+
+   **Context Loading Strategy**:
+   - Load only necessary portions relevant to active focus areas (avoid full-file dumping)
+   - Prefer summarizing long sections into concise scenario/requirement bullets
+   - Use progressive disclosure: add follow-on retrieval only if gaps detected
+   - If source docs are large, generate interim summary items instead of embedding raw text
+
+5. **Generate checklist** - Create "Unit Tests for Requirements":
+   - Create `FEATURE_DIR/checklists/` directory if it doesn't exist
+   - Generate unique checklist filename:
+     - Use short, descriptive name based on domain (e.g., `ux.md`, `api.md`, `security.md`)
+     - Format: `[domain].md`
+     - If file exists, append to existing file
+   - Number items sequentially starting from CHK001
+   - Each `/speckit.checklist` run creates a NEW file (never overwrites existing checklists)
+
+   **CORE PRINCIPLE - Test the Requirements, Not the Implementation**:
+   Every checklist item MUST evaluate the REQUIREMENTS THEMSELVES for:
+   - **Completeness**: Are all necessary requirements present?
+   - **Clarity**: Are requirements unambiguous and specific?
+   - **Consistency**: Do requirements align with each other?
+   - **Measurability**: Can requirements be objectively verified?
+   - **Coverage**: Are all scenarios/edge cases addressed?
+
+   **Category Structure** - Group items by requirement quality dimensions:
+   - **Requirement Completeness** (Are all necessary requirements documented?)
+   - **Requirement Clarity** (Are requirements specific and unambiguous?)
+   - **Requirement Consistency** (Do requirements align without conflicts?)
+   - **Acceptance Criteria Quality** (Are success criteria measurable?)
+   - **Scenario Coverage** (Are all flows/cases addressed?)
+   - **Edge Case Coverage** (Are boundary conditions defined?)
+   - **Non-Functional Requirements** (Performance, Security, Accessibility, etc. - are they specified?)
+   - **Dependencies & Assumptions** (Are they documented and validated?)
+   - **Ambiguities & Conflicts** (What needs clarification?)
+
+   **HOW TO WRITE CHECKLIST ITEMS - "Unit Tests for English"**:
+
+   ❌ **WRONG** (Testing implementation):
+   - "Verify landing page displays 3 episode cards"
+   - "Test hover states work on desktop"
+   - "Confirm logo click navigates home"
+
+   ✅ **CORRECT** (Testing requirements quality):
+   - "Are the exact number and layout of featured episodes specified?" [Completeness]
+   - "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" [Clarity]
+   - "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" [Consistency]
+   - "Are keyboard navigation requirements defined for all interactive UI?" [Coverage]
+   - "Is the fallback behavior specified when logo image fails to load?" [Edge Cases]
+   - "Are loading states defined for asynchronous episode data?" [Completeness]
+   - "Does the spec define visual hierarchy for competing UI elements?" [Clarity]
+
+   **ITEM STRUCTURE**:
+   Each item should follow this pattern:
+   - Question format asking about requirement quality
+   - Focus on what's WRITTEN (or not written) in the spec/plan
+   - Include quality dimension in brackets [Completeness/Clarity/Consistency/etc.]
+   - Reference spec section `[Spec §X.Y]` when checking existing requirements
+   - Use `[Gap]` marker when checking for missing requirements
+
+   **EXAMPLES BY QUALITY DIMENSION**:
+
+   Completeness:
+   - "Are error handling requirements defined for all API failure modes? [Gap]"
+   - "Are accessibility requirements specified for all interactive elements? [Completeness]"
+   - "Are mobile breakpoint requirements defined for responsive layouts? [Gap]"
+
+   Clarity:
+   - "Is 'fast loading' quantified with specific timing thresholds? [Clarity, Spec §NFR-2]"
+   - "Are 'related episodes' selection criteria explicitly defined? [Clarity, Spec §FR-5]"
+   - "Is 'prominent' defined with measurable visual properties? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-4]"
+
+   Consistency:
+   - "Do navigation requirements align across all pages? [Consistency, Spec §FR-10]"
+   - "Are card component requirements consistent between landing and detail pages? [Consistency]"
+
+   Coverage:
+   - "Are requirements defined for zero-state scenarios (no episodes)? [Coverage, Edge Case]"
+   - "Are concurrent user interaction scenarios addressed? [Coverage, Gap]"
+   - "Are requirements specified for partial data loading failures? [Coverage, Exception Flow]"
+
+   Measurability:
+   - "Are visual hierarchy requirements measurable/testable? [Acceptance Criteria, Spec §FR-1]"
+   - "Can 'balanced visual weight' be objectively verified? [Measurability, Spec §FR-2]"
+
+   **Scenario Classification & Coverage** (Requirements Quality Focus):
+   - Check if requirements exist for: Primary, Alternate, Exception/Error, Recovery, Non-Functional scenarios
+   - For each scenario class, ask: "Are [scenario type] requirements complete, clear, and consistent?"
+   - If scenario class missing: "Are [scenario type] requirements intentionally excluded or missing? [Gap]"
+   - Include resilience/rollback when state mutation occurs: "Are rollback requirements defined for migration failures? [Gap]"
+
+   **Traceability Requirements**:
+   - MINIMUM: ≥80% of items MUST include at least one traceability reference
+   - Each item should reference: spec section `[Spec §X.Y]`, or use markers: `[Gap]`, `[Ambiguity]`, `[Conflict]`, `[Assumption]`
+   - If no ID system exists: "Is a requirement & acceptance criteria ID scheme established? [Traceability]"
+
+   **Surface & Resolve Issues** (Requirements Quality Problems):
+   Ask questions about the requirements themselves:
+   - Ambiguities: "Is the term 'fast' quantified with specific metrics? [Ambiguity, Spec §NFR-1]"
+   - Conflicts: "Do navigation requirements conflict between §FR-10 and §FR-10a? [Conflict]"
+   - Assumptions: "Is the assumption of 'always available podcast API' validated? [Assumption]"
+   - Dependencies: "Are external podcast API requirements documented? [Dependency, Gap]"
+   - Missing definitions: "Is 'visual hierarchy' defined with measurable criteria? [Gap]"
+
+   **Content Consolidation**:
+   - Soft cap: If raw candidate items > 40, prioritize by risk/impact
+   - Merge near-duplicates checking the same requirement aspect
+   - If >5 low-impact edge cases, create one item: "Are edge cases X, Y, Z addressed in requirements? [Coverage]"
+
+   **🚫 ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED** - These make it an implementation test, not a requirements test:
+   - ❌ Any item starting with "Verify", "Test", "Confirm", "Check" + implementation behavior
+   - ❌ References to code execution, user actions, system behavior
+   - ❌ "Displays correctly", "works properly", "functions as expected"
+   - ❌ "Click", "navigate", "render", "load", "execute"
+   - ❌ Test cases, test plans, QA procedures
+   - ❌ Implementation details (frameworks, APIs, algorithms)
+
+   **✅ REQUIRED PATTERNS** - These test requirements quality:
+   - ✅ "Are [requirement type] defined/specified/documented for [scenario]?"
+   - ✅ "Is [vague term] quantified/clarified with specific criteria?"
+   - ✅ "Are requirements consistent between [section A] and [section B]?"
+   - ✅ "Can [requirement] be objectively measured/verified?"
+   - ✅ "Are [edge cases/scenarios] addressed in requirements?"
+   - ✅ "Does the spec define [missing aspect]?"
+
+6. **Structure Reference**: Generate the checklist following the canonical template in `.specify/templates/checklist-template.md` for title, meta section, category headings, and ID formatting. If template is unavailable, use: H1 title, purpose/created meta lines, `##` category sections containing `- [ ] CHK### <requirement item>` lines with globally incrementing IDs starting at CHK001.
+
+7. **Report**: Output full path to created checklist, item count, and remind user that each run creates a new file. Summarize:
+   - Focus areas selected
+   - Depth level
+   - Actor/timing
+   - Any explicit user-specified must-have items incorporated
+
+**Important**: Each `/speckit.checklist` command invocation creates a checklist file using short, descriptive names unless file already exists. This allows:
+
+- Multiple checklists of different types (e.g., `ux.md`, `test.md`, `security.md`)
+- Simple, memorable filenames that indicate checklist purpose
+- Easy identification and navigation in the `checklists/` folder
+
+To avoid clutter, use descriptive types and clean up obsolete checklists when done.
+
+## Example Checklist Types & Sample Items
+
+**UX Requirements Quality:** `ux.md`
+
+Sample items (testing the requirements, NOT the implementation):
+
+- "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined with measurable criteria? [Clarity, Spec §FR-1]"
+- "Is the number and positioning of UI elements explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-1]"
+- "Are interaction state requirements (hover, focus, active) consistently defined? [Consistency]"
+- "Are accessibility requirements specified for all interactive elements? [Coverage, Gap]"
+- "Is fallback behavior defined when images fail to load? [Edge Case, Gap]"
+- "Can 'prominent display' be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-4]"
+
+**API Requirements Quality:** `api.md`
+
+Sample items:
+
+- "Are error response formats specified for all failure scenarios? [Completeness]"
+- "Are rate limiting requirements quantified with specific thresholds? [Clarity]"
+- "Are authentication requirements consistent across all endpoints? [Consistency]"
+- "Are retry/timeout requirements defined for external dependencies? [Coverage, Gap]"
+- "Is versioning strategy documented in requirements? [Gap]"
+
+**Performance Requirements Quality:** `performance.md`
+
+Sample items:
+
+- "Are performance requirements quantified with specific metrics? [Clarity]"
+- "Are performance targets defined for all critical user journeys? [Coverage]"
+- "Are performance requirements under different load conditions specified? [Completeness]"
+- "Can performance requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability]"
+- "Are degradation requirements defined for high-load scenarios? [Edge Case, Gap]"
+
+**Security Requirements Quality:** `security.md`
+
+Sample items:
+
+- "Are authentication requirements specified for all protected resources? [Coverage]"
+- "Are data protection requirements defined for sensitive information? [Completeness]"
+- "Is the threat model documented and requirements aligned to it? [Traceability]"
+- "Are security requirements consistent with compliance obligations? [Consistency]"
+- "Are security failure/breach response requirements defined? [Gap, Exception Flow]"
+
+## Anti-Examples: What NOT To Do
+
+**❌ WRONG - These test implementation, not requirements:**
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] CHK001 - Verify landing page displays 3 episode cards [Spec §FR-001]
+- [ ] CHK002 - Test hover states work correctly on desktop [Spec §FR-003]
+- [ ] CHK003 - Confirm logo click navigates to home page [Spec §FR-010]
+- [ ] CHK004 - Check that related episodes section shows 3-5 items [Spec §FR-005]
+```
+
+**✅ CORRECT - These test requirements quality:**
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] CHK001 - Are the number and layout of featured episodes explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001]
+- [ ] CHK002 - Are hover state requirements consistently defined for all interactive elements? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003]
+- [ ] CHK003 - Are navigation requirements clear for all clickable brand elements? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010]
+- [ ] CHK004 - Is the selection criteria for related episodes documented? [Gap, Spec §FR-005]
+- [ ] CHK005 - Are loading state requirements defined for asynchronous episode data? [Gap]
+- [ ] CHK006 - Can "visual hierarchy" requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-001]
+```
+
+**Key Differences:**
+
+- Wrong: Tests if the system works correctly
+- Correct: Tests if the requirements are written correctly
+- Wrong: Verification of behavior
+- Correct: Validation of requirement quality
+- Wrong: "Does it do X?"
+- Correct: "Is X clearly specified?"

package/.claude/commands/speckit.clarify.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+---
+description: Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
+---
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+$ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
+
+## Outline
+
+Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.
+
+Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking `/speckit.plan`. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases.
+
+Execution steps:
+
+1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only` from repo root **once** (combined `--json --paths-only` mode / `-Json -PathsOnly`). Parse minimal JSON payload fields:
+   - `FEATURE_DIR`
+   - `FEATURE_SPEC`
+   - (Optionally capture `IMPL_PLAN`, `TASKS` for future chained flows.)
+   - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run `/speckit.specify` or verify feature branch environment.
+   - For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
+
+2. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).
+
+   Functional Scope & Behavior:
+   - Core user goals & success criteria
+   - Explicit out-of-scope declarations
+   - User roles / personas differentiation
+
+   Domain & Data Model:
+   - Entities, attributes, relationships
+   - Identity & uniqueness rules
+   - Lifecycle/state transitions
+   - Data volume / scale assumptions
+
+   Interaction & UX Flow:
+   - Critical user journeys / sequences
+   - Error/empty/loading states
+   - Accessibility or localization notes
+
+   Non-Functional Quality Attributes:
+   - Performance (latency, throughput targets)
+   - Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits)
+   - Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)
+   - Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)
+   - Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions)
+   - Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any)
+
+   Integration & External Dependencies:
+   - External services/APIs and failure modes
+   - Data import/export formats
+   - Protocol/versioning assumptions
+
+   Edge Cases & Failure Handling:
+   - Negative scenarios
+   - Rate limiting / throttling
+   - Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)
+
+   Constraints & Tradeoffs:
+   - Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)
+   - Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives
+
+   Terminology & Consistency:
+   - Canonical glossary terms
+   - Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms
+
+   Completion Signals:
+   - Acceptance criteria testability
+   - Measurable Definition of Done style indicators
+
+   Misc / Placeholders:
+   - TODO markers / unresolved decisions
+   - Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification
+
+   For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:
+   - Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy
+   - Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)
+
+3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:
+    - Maximum of 10 total questions across the whole session.
+    - Each question must be answerable with EITHER:
+       - A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR
+       - A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words").
+    - Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.
+    - Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low-impact questions when a single high-impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved.
+    - Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).
+    - Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.
+    - If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.
+
+4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):
+    - Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.
+    - For multiple‑choice questions:
+       - **Analyze all options** and determine the **most suitable option** based on:
+          - Best practices for the project type
+          - Common patterns in similar implementations
+          - Risk reduction (security, performance, maintainability)
+          - Alignment with any explicit project goals or constraints visible in the spec
+       - Present your **recommended option prominently** at the top with clear reasoning (1-2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice).
+       - Format as: `**Recommended:** Option [X] - <reasoning>`
+       - Then render all options as a Markdown table:
+
+       | Option | Description |
+       |--------|-------------|
+       | A | <Option A description> |
+       | B | <Option B description> |
+       | C | <Option C description> (add D/E as needed up to 5) |
+       | Short | Provide a different short answer (<=5 words) (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate) |
+
+       - After the table, add: `You can reply with the option letter (e.g., "A"), accept the recommendation by saying "yes" or "recommended", or provide your own short answer.`
+    - For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options):
+       - Provide your **suggested answer** based on best practices and context.
+       - Format as: `**Suggested:** <your proposed answer> - <brief reasoning>`
+       - Then output: `Format: Short answer (<=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying "yes" or "suggested", or provide your own answer.`
+    - After the user answers:
+       - If the user replies with "yes", "recommended", or "suggested", use your previously stated recommendation/suggestion as the answer.
+       - Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.
+       - If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).
+       - Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.
+    - Stop asking further questions when:
+       - All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR
+       - User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR
+       - You reach 5 asked questions.
+    - Never reveal future queued questions in advance.
+    - If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.
+
+5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):
+    - Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.
+    - For the first integrated answer in this session:
+       - Ensure a `## Clarifications` section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).
+       - Under it, create (if not present) a `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` subheading for today.
+    - Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: `- Q: <question> → A: <final answer>`.
+    - Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):
+       - Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.
+       - User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.
+       - Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.
+       - Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).
+       - Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).
+       - Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding `(formerly referred to as "X")` once.
+    - If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.
+    - Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).
+    - Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.
+    - Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).
+
+6. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):
+   - Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).
+   - Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.
+   - Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.
+   - No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).
+   - Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: `## Clarifications`, `### Session YYYY-MM-DD`.
+   - Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.
+
+7. Write the updated spec back to `FEATURE_SPEC`.
+
+8. Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):
+   - Number of questions asked & answered.
+   - Path to updated spec.
+   - Sections touched (list names).
+   - Coverage summary table listing each taxonomy category with Status: Resolved (was Partial/Missing and addressed), Deferred (exceeds question quota or better suited for planning), Clear (already sufficient), Outstanding (still Partial/Missing but low impact).
+   - If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to `/speckit.plan` or run `/speckit.clarify` again later post-plan.
+   - Suggested next command.
+
+Behavior rules:
+
+- If clarifications reveal complex unknowns, flag for research phase
+- If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: "No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification." and suggest proceeding.
+- If spec file missing, instruct user to run `/speckit.specify` first (do not create a new spec here).
+- Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).
+- Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.
+- Respect user early termination signals ("stop", "done", "proceed").
+- If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.
+- If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.
+
+Context for prioritization: $ARGUMENTS

package/.claude/commands/speckit.constitution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+description: Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs, ensuring all dependent templates stay in sync
+---
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+$ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
+
+## Outline
+
+You are updating the project constitution at `.specify/memory/constitution.md`. This file is a TEMPLATE containing placeholder tokens in square brackets (e.g. `[PROJECT_NAME]`, `[PRINCIPLE_1_NAME]`). Your job is to (a) collect/derive concrete values, (b) fill the template precisely, and (c) propagate any amendments across dependent artifacts.
+
+Follow this execution flow:
+
+1. Load the existing constitution template at `.specify/memory/constitution.md`.
+   - Identify every placeholder token of the form `[ALL_CAPS_IDENTIFIER]`.
+   **IMPORTANT**: The user might require less or more principles than the ones used in the template. If a number is specified, respect that - follow the general template. You will update the doc accordingly.
+
+2. Collect/derive values for placeholders:
+   - If user input (conversation) supplies a value, use it.
+   - Otherwise infer from existing repo context (README, docs, prior constitution versions if embedded).
+   - For governance dates: `RATIFICATION_DATE` is the original adoption date (if unknown ask or mark TODO), `LAST_AMENDED_DATE` is today if changes are made, otherwise keep previous.
+   - `CONSTITUTION_VERSION` must increment according to semantic versioning rules:
+     - MAJOR: Backward incompatible governance/principle removals or redefinitions.
+     - MINOR: New principle/section added or materially expanded guidance.
+     - PATCH: Clarifications, wording, typo fixes, non-semantic refinements.
+   - If version bump type ambiguous, propose reasoning before finalizing.
+
+3. Draft the updated constitution content:
+   - Replace every placeholder with concrete text (no bracketed tokens left except intentionally retained template slots that the project has chosen not to define yet—explicitly justify any left).
+   - Preserve heading hierarchy and comments can be removed once replaced unless they still add clarifying guidance.
+   - Ensure each Principle section: succinct name line, paragraph (or bullet list) capturing non‑negotiable rules, explicit rationale if not obvious.
+   - Ensure Governance section lists amendment procedure, versioning policy, and compliance review expectations.
+
+4. Consistency propagation checklist (convert prior checklist into active validations):
+   - Read `.specify/templates/plan-template.md` and ensure any "Constitution Check" or rules align with updated principles.
+   - Read `.specify/templates/spec-template.md` for scope/requirements alignment—update if constitution adds/removes mandatory sections or constraints.
+   - Read `.specify/templates/tasks-template.md` and ensure task categorization reflects new or removed principle-driven task types (e.g., observability, versioning, testing discipline).
+   - Read each command file in `.specify/templates/commands/*.md` (including this one) to verify no outdated references (agent-specific names like CLAUDE only) remain when generic guidance is required.
+   - Read any runtime guidance docs (e.g., `README.md`, `docs/quickstart.md`, or agent-specific guidance files if present). Update references to principles changed.
+
+5. Produce a Sync Impact Report (prepend as an HTML comment at top of the constitution file after update):
+   - Version change: old → new
+   - List of modified principles (old title → new title if renamed)
+   - Added sections
+   - Removed sections
+   - Templates requiring updates (✅ updated / ⚠ pending) with file paths
+   - Follow-up TODOs if any placeholders intentionally deferred.
+
+6. Validation before final output:
+   - No remaining unexplained bracket tokens.
+   - Version line matches report.
+   - Dates ISO format YYYY-MM-DD.
+   - Principles are declarative, testable, and free of vague language ("should" → replace with MUST/SHOULD rationale where appropriate).
+
+7. Write the completed constitution back to `.specify/memory/constitution.md` (overwrite).
+
+8. Output a final summary to the user with:
+   - New version and bump rationale.
+   - Any files flagged for manual follow-up.
+   - Suggested commit message (e.g., `docs: amend constitution to vX.Y.Z (principle additions + governance update)`).
+
+Formatting & Style Requirements:
+
+- Use Markdown headings exactly as in the template (do not demote/promote levels).
+- Wrap long rationale lines to keep readability (<100 chars ideally) but do not hard enforce with awkward breaks.
+- Keep a single blank line between sections.
+- Avoid trailing whitespace.
+
+If the user supplies partial updates (e.g., only one principle revision), still perform validation and version decision steps.
+
+If critical info missing (e.g., ratification date truly unknown), insert `TODO(<FIELD_NAME>): explanation` and include in the Sync Impact Report under deferred items.
+
+Do not create a new template; always operate on the existing `.specify/memory/constitution.md` file.