drt-method 1.0.0

package/src/drt-skills/4-implementation/drt-code-review/steps/step-01-gather-context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+diff_output: '' # set at runtime
+spec_file: '' # set at runtime (path or empty)
+review_mode: '' # set at runtime: "full" or "no-spec"
+story_key: '' # set at runtime when discovered from sprint status
+---
+
+# Step 1: Gather Context
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- The prompt that triggered this workflow IS the intent — not a hint.
+- Do not modify any files. This step is read-only.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. **Find the review target.** The conversation context before this skill was triggered IS your starting point — not a blank slate. Check in this order — stop as soon as the review target is identified:
+
+   **Tier 1 — Explicit argument.**
+   Did the user pass a PR, commit SHA, branch, spec file, or diff source this message?
+   - PR reference → resolve to branch/commit via `gh pr view`. If resolution fails, ask for a SHA or branch.
+   - Commit or branch → use directly.
+   - Spec file → set `{spec_file}` to the provided path. Check its frontmatter for `baseline_commit`. If found, use as diff baseline. If not found, continue the cascade (a spec alone does not identify a diff source).
+   - Also scan the argument for diff-mode keywords that narrow the scope:
+     - "staged" / "staged changes" → Staged changes only
+     - "uncommitted" / "working tree" / "all changes" → Uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged)
+     - "branch diff" / "vs main" / "against main" / "compared to <branch>" → Branch diff (extract base branch if mentioned)
+     - "commit range" / "last N commits" / "<from-sha>..<to-sha>" → Specific commit range
+     - "this diff" / "provided diff" / "paste" → User-provided diff (do not match bare "diff" — it appears in other modes)
+   - When multiple keywords match, prefer the most specific (e.g., "branch diff" over bare "diff").
+
+   **Tier 2 — Recent conversation.**
+   Do the last few messages reveal what the user wants to be reviewed? Look for spec paths, commit refs, branches, PRs, or descriptions of a change. Apply the same diff-mode keyword scan and routing as Tier 1.
+
+   **Tier 3 — Sprint tracking.**
+   Look for a sprint status file (`*sprint-status*`) in `{implementation_artifacts}` or `{planning_artifacts}`. If found, scan for stories with status `review`:
+   - **Exactly one `review` story:** Set `{story_key}` to the story's key (e.g., `1-2-user-auth`). Suggest it: "I found story <story-id> in `review` status. Would you like to review its changes? [Y] Yes / [N] No, let me choose". If confirmed, use the story context to determine the diff source (branch name derived from story slug, or uncommitted changes). If declined, clear `{story_key}` and fall through.
+   - **Multiple `review` stories:** Present them as numbered options alongside a manual choice option. Wait for user selection. If a story is selected, set `{story_key}` and use its context to determine the diff source. If manual choice is selected, clear `{story_key}` and fall through.
+   - **None:** Fall through.
+
+   **Tier 4 — Current git state.**
+   If version control is unavailable, skip to Tier 5. Otherwise, check the current branch and HEAD. If the branch is not `main` (or the default branch), confirm: "I see HEAD is `<short-sha>` on `<branch>` — do you want to review this branch's changes?" If confirmed, treat as a branch diff against `main`. If declined, fall through.
+
+   **Tier 5 — Ask.**
+   Fall through to instruction 2.
+
+   Never ask extra questions beyond what the cascade prescribes. If a tier above already identified the target, skip the remaining tiers and proceed to instruction 3 (construct diff).
+
+2. HALT. Ask the user: **What do you want to review?** Present these options:
+   - **Uncommitted changes** (staged + unstaged)
+   - **Staged changes only**
+   - **Branch diff** vs a base branch (ask which base branch)
+   - **Specific commit range** (ask for the range)
+   - **Provided diff or file list** (user pastes or provides a path)
+
+3. Construct `{diff_output}` from the chosen source.
+   - For **staged changes only**: run `git diff --cached`.
+   - For **uncommitted changes** (staged + unstaged): run `git diff HEAD`.
+   - For **branch diff**: verify the base branch exists before running `git diff`. If it does not exist, HALT and ask the user for a valid branch.
+   - For **commit range**: verify the range resolves. If it does not, HALT and ask the user for a valid range.
+   - For **provided diff**: validate the content is non-empty and parseable as a unified diff. If it is not parseable, HALT and ask the user to provide a valid diff.
+   - For **file list**: validate each path exists in the working tree. Construct `{diff_output}` by running `git diff HEAD -- <path1> <path2> ...`. If any paths are untracked (new files not yet staged), use `git diff --no-index /dev/null <path>` to include them. If the diff is empty (files have no uncommitted changes and are not untracked), ask the user whether to review the full file contents or to specify a different baseline.
+   - After constructing `{diff_output}`, verify it is non-empty regardless of source type. If empty, HALT and tell the user there is nothing to review.
+
+4. **Set the spec context.**
+   - If `{spec_file}` is already set (from Tier 1 or Tier 2): verify the file exists and is readable, then set `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+   - Otherwise, ask the user: **Is there a spec or story file that provides context for these changes?**
+     - If yes: set `{spec_file}` to the path provided, verify the file exists and is readable, then set `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+     - If no: set `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`.
+
+5. If `{review_mode}` = `"full"` and the file at `{spec_file}` has a `context` field in its frontmatter listing additional docs, load each referenced document. Warn the user about any docs that cannot be found.
+
+6. Sanity check: if `{diff_output}` exceeds approximately 3000 lines, warn the user and offer to chunk the review by file group.
+   - If the user opts to chunk: agree on the first group, narrow `{diff_output}` accordingly, and list the remaining groups for the user to note for follow-up runs.
+   - If the user declines: proceed as-is with the full diff.
+
+### CHECKPOINT
+
+Present a summary before proceeding: diff stats (files changed, lines added/removed), `{review_mode}`, and loaded spec/context docs (if any). HALT and wait for user confirmation to proceed.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-02-review.md`

package/src/drt-skills/4-implementation/drt-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+failed_layers: '' # set at runtime: comma-separated list of layers that failed or returned empty
+---
+
+# Step 2: Review
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_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
+
+1. The review layers are `{workflow.review_layers}`, resolved during activation.
+
+2. For each layer in `{workflow.review_layers}`:
+   - `instruction` empty or missing → drop the layer silently (an override disabled it).
+   - `when` condition present and not satisfied by the current context (`{review_mode}`, `{spec_file}`) → drop the layer and tell the user, e.g. "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided."
+   - otherwise → the layer is active.
+
+   If no layer is active, HALT with status `blocked` and blocking condition `no active review layers`.
+
+3. Execute all active layers in parallel wherever their execution methods allow: substitute the runtime placeholders (`{diff_output}`, `{spec_file}`) into each layer's `instruction`, then follow it verbatim. If a layer's instruction requires subagents and subagents are not available, generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` for each such layer and HALT. Ask the user to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings. When findings are pasted, treat them as those layers' findings and resume from this point.
+
+4. **Layer failure handling**: If any layer fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer's `name` to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers.
+
+5. Collect all findings from the completed layers, keeping track of each finding's originating layer `id`.
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-03-triage.md`

package/src/drt-skills/4-implementation/drt-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 3: Triage
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. **Normalize** findings from all layers into a unified list where each finding has:
+   - `id` -- sequential integer
+   - `source` -- the `id` of the layer that produced the finding (e.g., `blind-hunter`), or merged sources joined with `+` (e.g., `blind-hunter+edge-case-hunter`)
+   - `title` -- one-line summary
+   - `detail` -- full description
+   - `location` -- file and line reference (if available)
+
+2. **Deduplicate.** Deduplicate only findings with the same claim and same required action. If two or more findings meet both conditions, merge them into one:
+   - Use the most specific finding as the base (prefer findings with a precise location over prose-only findings).
+   - Append any unique detail, reasoning, or location references from the other finding(s) into the surviving `detail` field.
+   - Set `source` to the merged sources (e.g., `blind-hunter+edge-case-hunter`).
+
+3. Then evaluate each remaining finding independently. Do not reject a finding because a related finding was rejected.
+
+4. **Read the code before rating.** Before assigning severity, open the source at each finding's location and read enough surrounding code to judge reachability -- call sites, guards, and validation that live outside the diff hunk. Do not rate from the diff hunk alone. Severity reflects the real consequence at a real call site, not the worst theoretical reading.
+
+5. **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
+
+6. **Route** each finding into exactly one triage bucket:
+   - **decision_needed** -- There is an ambiguous choice that requires human input. The code cannot be correctly patched without knowing the user's intent. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+   - **patch** -- Code issue that is fixable without human input. The correct fix is unambiguous.
+   - **defer** -- Pre-existing issue not caused by the current change. Real but not actionable now.
+   - **dismiss** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere.
+
+   If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `decision_needed`, reclassify it as `patch` (if the fix is unambiguous) or `defer` (if not).
+
+7. **Drop** all `dismiss` findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary.
+
+8. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review.
+
+9. If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state "✅ Clean review — all layers passed." (Step 3 already warned if any review layers failed via `{failed_layers}`.)
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-04-present.md`

package/src/drt-skills/4-implementation/drt-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
+---
+
+# Step 4: Present and Act
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- When `{spec_file}` is set, always write findings to the story file before offering action choices.
+- `decision-needed` findings must be resolved before handling `patch` findings.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+### 1. Clean review shortcut
+
+If zero findings remain after triage (all dismissed or none raised): state that and proceed to section 6 (Sprint Status Update).
+
+### 2. Write findings to the story file
+
+If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append a `### Review Findings` subsection. Write all findings in this order:
+
+1. **`decision-needed`** findings (unchecked):
+   `- [ ] [Review][Decision] <Title> — <Detail>`
+
+2. **`patch`** findings (unchecked):
+   `- [ ] [Review][Patch] <Title> [<file>:<line>]`
+
+3. **`defer`** findings (checked off, marked deferred):
+   `- [x] [Review][Defer] <Title> [<file>:<line>] — deferred, pre-existing`
+
+Also append each `defer` finding to `{deferred_work_file}` under a heading `## Deferred from: code review ({date})`. If `{spec_file}` is set, include its basename in the heading (e.g., `code review of story-3.3 (2026-03-18)`). One bullet per finding with description.
+
+### 3. Present summary
+
+Announce what was written:
+
+> **Code review complete.** <D> `decision-needed`, <P> `patch`, <W> `defer`, <R> dismissed as noise.
+
+If `{spec_file}` is set, add: `Findings written to the review findings section in {spec_file}.`
+Otherwise add: `Findings are listed above. No story file was provided, so nothing was persisted.`
+
+### 4. Resolve decision-needed findings
+
+If `decision_needed` findings exist, present each one with its detail and the options available. The user must decide — the correct fix is ambiguous without their input. Walk through each finding (or batch related ones) and get the user's call. Once resolved, each becomes a `patch`, `defer`, or is dismissed.
+
+If the user chooses to defer, ask: Quick one-line reason for deferring this item? (helps future reviews): — then append that reason to both the story file bullet and the `{deferred_work_file}` entry.
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number. Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+### 5. Handle `patch` findings
+
+If `patch` findings exist (including any resolved from step 4), HALT. Ask the user:
+
+If `{spec_file}` is set, present all three options:
+
+> **How would you like to handle the `<P>` `patch` findings?**
+> 1. **Apply every patch** — fix all of them now, no per-finding confirmation. Defer and decision-needed items are not touched.
+> 2. **Leave as action items** — they are already in the story file
+> 3. **Walk through each patch** — show details for each before deciding
+
+If `{spec_file}` is **not** set, present only options 1 and 2 (omit "Leave as action items" — findings were not written to a file):
+
+> **How would you like to handle the `<P>` `patch` findings?**
+> 1. **Apply every patch** — fix all of them now, no per-finding confirmation. Defer and decision-needed items are not touched.
+> 2. **Walk through each patch** — show details for each before deciding
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number. Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+- **Apply every patch**: Apply every patch finding without per-finding confirmation. Do not modify defer or decision-needed items. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made. If `{spec_file}` is set, check off the patch items in the story file (leave defer items as-is).
+- **Leave as action items** (only when `{spec_file}` is set): Done — findings are already written to the story.
+- **Walk through each patch**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer the applicable options above.
+
+  **HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+**✅ Code review actions complete**
+
+- Decision-needed resolved: <D>
+- Patches handled: <P>
+- Deferred: <W>
+- Dismissed: <R>
+
+### 6. Update story status and sync sprint tracking
+
+Skip this section if `{spec_file}` is not set.
+
+#### Determine new status based on review outcome
+
+- If all `decision-needed` and `patch` findings were resolved (fixed or dismissed) AND no unresolved `high`/`medium` findings remain: set `{new_status}` = `done`. Update the story file Status section to `done`.
+- If `patch` findings were left as action items, or unresolved issues remain: set `{new_status}` = `in-progress`. Update the story file Status section to `in-progress`.
+
+Save the story file.
+
+#### Sync sprint-status.yaml
+
+If `{story_key}` is not set, skip this subsection and note that sprint status was not synced because no story key was available.
+
+If `{sprint_status}` file exists:
+
+1. Load the FULL `{sprint_status}` file.
+2. Find the `development_status` entry matching `{story_key}`.
+3. If found: update `development_status[{story_key}]` to `{new_status}`. Update `last_updated` to current date. Save the file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS.
+4. If `{story_key}` not found in sprint status: warn the user that the story file was updated but sprint-status sync failed.
+
+If `{sprint_status}` file does not exist, note that story status was updated in the story file only.
+
+#### Completion summary
+
+> **Review Complete!**
+>
+> **Story Status:** `{new_status}`
+> **Issues Fixed:** <fixed_count>
+> **Action Items Created:** <action_count>
+> **Deferred:** <W>
+> **Dismissed:** <R>
+
+### 7. Next steps
+
+Present the user with follow-up options:
+
+> **What would you like to do next?**
+> 1. **Start the next story** — run `dev-story` to pick up the next `ready-for-dev` story
+> 2. **Re-run code review** — address findings and review again
+> 3. **Done** — end the workflow
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your choice. Do not proceed until the user selects an option.
+
+## On Complete
+
+Run: `node {project-root}/_drt/scripts/resolve-customization.js --skill {skill-root} --key workflow.on_complete`
+
+If the resolved `workflow.on_complete` is non-empty, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting.

package/src/drt-skills/4-implementation/drt-correct-course/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
+---
+name: drt-correct-course
+description: 'Manage significant changes during sprint execution. Use when the user says "correct course" or "propose sprint change"'
+---
+
+# Correct Course - Sprint Change Management Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Manage significant changes during sprint execution by analyzing impact across all project artifacts and producing a structured Sprint Change Proposal.
+
+**Your Role:** You are a Developer navigating change management. Analyze the triggering issue, assess impact across PRD, epics, architecture, and UX artifacts, and produce an actionable Sprint Change Proposal with clear handoff.
+
+## Conventions
+
+- Bare paths (e.g. `checklist.md`) resolve from the skill root.
+- `{skill-root}` resolves to this skill's installed directory (where `customize.toml` lives).
+- `{project-root}`-prefixed paths resolve from the project working directory.
+- `{skill-name}` resolves to the skill directory's basename.
+
+## On Activation
+
+### Step 1: Resolve the Workflow Block
+
+Run: `node {project-root}/_drt/scripts/resolve-customization.js --skill {skill-root} --key workflow`
+
+**If the script fails**, resolve the `workflow` block yourself by reading these three files in base → team → user order and applying the same structural merge rules as the resolver:
+
+1. `{skill-root}/customize.toml` — defaults
+2. `{project-root}/_drt/custom/{skill-name}.toml` — team overrides
+3. `{project-root}/_drt/custom/{skill-name}.user.toml` — personal overrides
+
+Any missing file is skipped. Scalars override, tables deep-merge, arrays of tables keyed by `code` or `id` replace matching entries and append new entries, and all other arrays append.
+
+### Step 2: Execute Prepend Steps
+
+Execute each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_prepend}` in order before proceeding.
+
+### Step 3: Load Persistent Facts
+
+Treat every entry in `{workflow.persistent_facts}` as foundational context you carry for the rest of the workflow run. Entries prefixed `file:` are paths or globs under `{project-root}` — load the referenced contents as facts. All other entries are facts verbatim.
+
+### Step 4: Load Config
+
+Load config from `{project-root}/_drt/drt/config.yaml` and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`
+- `user_skill_level`
+- `implementation_artifacts`
+- `planning_artifacts`
+- `project_knowledge`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- Language MUST be tailored to `{user_skill_level}`
+- Generate all documents in `{document_output_language}`
+- DOCUMENT OUTPUT: Updated epics, stories, or PRD sections. Clear, actionable changes. User skill level (`{user_skill_level}`) affects conversation style ONLY, not document updates.
+
+### Step 5: Greet the User
+
+Greet `{user_name}`, speaking in `{communication_language}`.
+
+### Step 6: Execute Append Steps
+
+Execute each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_append}` in order.
+
+Activation is complete. If `activation_steps_prepend` or `activation_steps_append` were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.
+
+## Paths
+
+- `default_output_file` = `{planning_artifacts}/sprint-change-proposal-{date}.md`
+
+## Input Files
+
+| Input | Path | Load Strategy |
+|-------|------|---------------|
+| PRD | `{planning_artifacts}/*prd*.md` (whole) or `{planning_artifacts}/*prd*/*.md` (sharded) | FULL_LOAD |
+| Epics | `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*.md` (whole) or `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*/*.md` (sharded) | FULL_LOAD |
+| Architecture | `{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*.md` (whole) or `{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*/*.md` (sharded) | FULL_LOAD |
+| UX Design | `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md` (whole) or `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/*.md` (sharded) | FULL_LOAD |
+| Spec | `{planning_artifacts}/*spec-*.md` (whole) | FULL_LOAD |
+| Document Project | `{project_knowledge}/index.md` (sharded) | INDEX_GUIDED |
+
+## Execution
+
+### Document Discovery - Loading Project Artifacts
+
+**Strategy**: Course correction needs broad project context to assess change impact accurately. Load all available planning artifacts.
+
+**Discovery Process for FULL_LOAD documents (PRD, Epics, Architecture, UX Design, Spec):**
+
+1. **Search for whole document first** - Look for files matching the whole-document pattern (e.g., `*prd*.md`, `*epic*.md`, `*architecture*.md`, `*ux*.md`, `*spec-*.md`)
+2. **Check for sharded version** - If whole document not found, look for a directory with `index.md` (e.g., `prd/index.md`, `epics/index.md`)
+3. **If sharded version found**:
+   - Read `index.md` to understand the document structure
+   - Read ALL section files listed in the index
+   - Process the combined content as a single document
+4. **Priority**: If both whole and sharded versions exist, use the whole document
+
+**Discovery Process for INDEX_GUIDED documents (Document Project):**
+
+1. **Search for index file** - Look for `{project_knowledge}/index.md`
+2. **If found**: Read the index to understand available documentation sections
+3. **Selectively load sections** based on relevance to the change being analyzed — do NOT load everything, only sections that relate to the impacted areas
+4. **This document is optional** — skip if `{project_knowledge}` does not exist (greenfield projects)
+
+**Fuzzy matching**: Be flexible with document names — users may use variations like `prd.md`, `bmm-prd.md`, `product-requirements.md`, etc.
+
+**Missing documents**: Not all documents may exist. PRD and Epics are essential; Architecture, UX Design, Spec, and Document Project are loaded if available. HALT if PRD or Epics cannot be found.
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Initialize Change Navigation">
+  <action>Confirm change trigger and gather user description of the issue</action>
+  <action>Ask: "What specific issue or change has been identified that requires navigation?"</action>
+  <action>Verify access to project documents:</action>
+    - PRD (Product Requirements Document) — required
+    - Current Epics and Stories — required
+    - Architecture documentation — optional, load if available
+    - UI/UX specifications — optional, load if available
+  <action>Ask user for mode preference:</action>
+    - **Incremental** (recommended): Refine each edit collaboratively
+    - **Batch**: Present all changes at once for review
+  <action>Store mode selection for use throughout workflow</action>
+
+<action if="change trigger is unclear">HALT: "Cannot navigate change without clear understanding of the triggering issue. Please provide specific details about what needs to change and why."</action>
+
+<action if="PRD or Epics are unavailable">HALT: "Need access to PRD and Epics to assess change impact. Please ensure these documents are accessible. Architecture and UI/UX will be used if available."</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Execute Change Analysis Checklist">
+  <action>Read fully and follow the systematic analysis from: checklist.md</action>
+  <action>Work through each checklist section interactively with the user</action>
+  <action>Record status for each checklist item:</action>
+    - [x] Done - Item completed successfully
+    - [N/A] Skip - Item not applicable to this change
+    - [!] Action-needed - Item requires attention or follow-up
+  <action>Maintain running notes of findings and impacts discovered</action>
+  <action>Present checklist progress after each major section</action>
+
+<action if="checklist cannot be completed">Identify blocking issues and work with user to resolve before continuing</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Draft Specific Change Proposals">
+<action>Based on checklist findings, create explicit edit proposals for each identified artifact</action>
+
+<action>For Story changes:</action>
+
+- Show old → new text format
+- Include story ID and section being modified
+- Provide rationale for each change
+- Example format:
+
+  ```
+  Story: [STORY-123] User Authentication
+  Section: Acceptance Criteria
+
+  OLD:
+  - User can log in with email/password
+
+  NEW:
+  - User can log in with email/password
+  - User can enable 2FA via authenticator app
+
+  Rationale: Security requirement identified during implementation
+  ```
+
+<action>For PRD modifications:</action>
+
+- Specify exact sections to update
+- Show current content and proposed changes
+- Explain impact on MVP scope and requirements
+
+<action>For Architecture changes:</action>
+
+- Identify affected components, patterns, or technology choices
+- Describe diagram updates needed
+- Note any ripple effects on other components
+
+<action>For UI/UX specification updates:</action>
+
+- Reference specific screens or components
+- Show wireframe or flow changes needed
+- Connect changes to user experience impact
+
+<check if="mode is Incremental">
+  <action>Present each edit proposal individually</action>
+  <ask>Review and refine this change? Options: Approve [a], Edit [e], Skip [s]</ask>
+  <action>Iterate on each proposal based on user feedback</action>
+</check>
+
+<action if="mode is Batch">Collect all edit proposals and present together at end of step</action>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="Generate Sprint Change Proposal">
+<action>Compile comprehensive Sprint Change Proposal document with following sections:</action>
+
+<action>Section 1: Issue Summary</action>
+
+- Clear problem statement describing what triggered the change
+- Context about when/how the issue was discovered
+- Evidence or examples demonstrating the issue
+
+<action>Section 2: Impact Analysis</action>
+
+- Epic Impact: Which epics are affected and how
+- Story Impact: Current and future stories requiring changes
+- Artifact Conflicts: PRD, Architecture, UI/UX documents needing updates
+- Technical Impact: Code, infrastructure, or deployment implications
+
+<action>Section 3: Recommended Approach</action>
+
+- Present chosen path forward from checklist evaluation:
+  - Direct Adjustment: Modify/add stories within existing plan
+  - Potential Rollback: Revert completed work to simplify resolution
+  - MVP Review: Reduce scope or modify goals
+- Provide clear rationale for recommendation
+- Include effort estimate, risk assessment, and timeline impact
+
+<action>Section 4: Detailed Change Proposals</action>
+
+- Include all refined edit proposals from Step 3
+- Group by artifact type (Stories, PRD, Architecture, UI/UX)
+- Ensure each change includes before/after and justification
+
+<action>Section 5: Implementation Handoff</action>
+
+- Categorize change scope:
+  - Minor: Direct implementation by Developer agent
+  - Moderate: Backlog reorganization needed (PO/DEV)
+  - Major: Fundamental replan required (PM/Architect)
+- Specify handoff recipients and their responsibilities
+- Define success criteria for implementation
+
+<action>Present complete Sprint Change Proposal to user</action>
+<action>Write Sprint Change Proposal document to {default_output_file}</action>
+<ask>Review complete proposal. Continue [c] or Edit [e]?</ask>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="Finalize and Route for Implementation">
+<action>Get explicit user approval for complete proposal</action>
+<ask>Do you approve this Sprint Change Proposal for implementation? (yes/no/revise)</ask>
+
+<check if="no or revise">
+  <action>Gather specific feedback on what needs adjustment</action>
+  <action>Return to appropriate step to address concerns</action>
+  <goto step="3">If changes needed to edit proposals</goto>
+  <goto step="4">If changes needed to overall proposal structure</goto>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="yes the proposal is approved by the user">
+  <action>Finalize Sprint Change Proposal document</action>
+  <action>Determine change scope classification:</action>
+
+- **Minor**: Can be implemented directly by Developer agent
+- **Moderate**: Requires backlog reorganization and PO/DEV coordination
+- **Major**: Needs fundamental replan with PM/Architect involvement
+
+<action>Provide appropriate handoff based on scope:</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="Minor scope">
+  <action>Route to: Developer agent for direct implementation</action>
+  <action>Deliverables: Finalized edit proposals and implementation tasks</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="Moderate scope">
+  <action>Route to: Product Owner / Developer agents</action>
+  <action>Deliverables: Sprint Change Proposal + backlog reorganization plan</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="Major scope">
+  <action>Route to: Product Manager / Solution Architect</action>
+  <action>Deliverables: Complete Sprint Change Proposal + escalation notice</action>
+
+<action>Confirm handoff completion and next steps with user</action>
+<action>Document handoff in workflow execution log</action>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Workflow Completion">
+<action>Summarize workflow execution:</action>
+  - Issue addressed: {{change_trigger}}
+  - Change scope: {{scope_classification}}
+  - Artifacts modified: {{list_of_artifacts}}
+  - Routed to: {{handoff_recipients}}
+
+<action>Confirm all deliverables produced:</action>
+
+- Sprint Change Proposal document
+- Specific edit proposals with before/after
+- Implementation handoff plan
+
+<action>Report workflow completion to user with personalized message: "Correct Course workflow complete, {user_name}!"</action>
+<action>Remind user of success criteria and next steps for Developer agent</action>
+<action>Run: `node {project-root}/_drt/scripts/resolve-customization.js --skill {skill-root} --key workflow.on_complete` — if the resolved value is non-empty, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting.</action>
+</step>
+
+</workflow>