jettypod 3.0.1

package/SPEED-STABLE-AUDIT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,853 @@
+# Speed/Stable/Production Mode Skills Audit
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This document analyzes the three-phase development methodology implemented through the mode skills. The approach separates feature implementation into:
+- **Speed mode**: Implement ALL scoped functionality assuming happy path
+- **Stable mode**: Add error handling and validation for internal use
+- **Production mode**: Add security, compliance, scalability, and performance for external/production use
+
+This audit focuses on the speed and stable mode skills, as production mode is not yet implemented.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Opportunities to Refactor
+
+### 1.1 Code Duplication
+
+**Issue**: Scenario parsing and file discovery logic is duplicated across both skills.
+
+**Example**: Both skills independently:
+- Parse Gherkin scenarios
+- Query the database for work items
+- Extract scenario requirements
+- Run BDD tests
+
+**Recommendation**: Extract shared functionality into common utilities:
+```javascript
+// lib/scenario-helpers.js
+function parseScenarios(scenarioContent) { /* ... */ }
+function matchScenarioToChore(scenarios, choreDesc) { /* ... */ }
+
+// lib/test-helpers.js
+async function runBddTests(featureFile, options) { /* ... */ }
+function parseTestResults(stdout) { /* ... */ }
+```
+
+### 1.2 Inconsistent Error Handling Patterns
+
+**Issue**: Stable mode demonstrates comprehensive error handling in its *instructions* but speed mode doesn't model good error handling practices in its own implementation code.
+
+**Example**: Speed mode's scenario loading code (lines 44-64) has no error handling, while stable mode's equivalent (lines 80-158) is comprehensive.
+
+**Recommendation**: 
+- Both skills should practice what they preach
+- Speed mode instruction code should still have basic error handling (even if the code it generates doesn't)
+- Create a clear separation between "skill execution code" and "code being generated"
+
+### 1.3 File Discovery Brittleness
+
+**Issue**: Both skills rely on fragile approaches for finding relevant files:
+- Speed mode: Manual glob/grep patterns based on scenario keywords
+- Stable mode: Git history parsing with manual fallback
+
+**Example**: Stable mode (lines 260-321) has complex git log parsing that can fail in multiple ways:
+```javascript
+const { stdout: gitLog } = await execPromise(
+  `git log --oneline --all --grep="${featureName}" -10`
+);
+```
+
+**Problems**:
+- Assumes feature name in commit messages
+- Limited to 10 commits
+- Breaks if commits aren't descriptive
+- No handling for squashed/rebased history
+
+**Recommendation**:
+- Store file associations in the work item database
+- Speed mode records files it creates/modifies
+- Stable mode reads from database first, git history second
+- Add a `work_item_files` table linking work items to affected files
+
+### 1.4 Test Execution Parsing
+
+**Issue**: Both skills parse test output with fragile string matching.
+
+**Example** (stable mode, line 472):
+```javascript
+const targetScenarioPassed = stdout.includes('[scenario-title]') && stdout.includes('✓');
+```
+
+**Problems**:
+- Breaks if test output format changes
+- Hardcoded symbols ('✓', '✗')
+- No structured output parsing
+- Difficult to extract specific failure details
+
+**Recommendation**:
+- Use structured test output (JSON reporters)
+- Parse Cucumber/Jest JSON output for deterministic results
+- Provide detailed failure context (line numbers, assertions, stack traces)
+
+### 1.5 Iteration Logic Complexity
+
+**Issue**: Stable mode's test-fix iteration loop (lines 434-548) is monolithic and hard to reason about.
+
+**Problems**:
+- Mixes concerns: file editing, test running, result parsing, error handling
+- Difficult to test in isolation
+- Hard to add new iteration strategies
+- No clear separation of retry logic from business logic
+
+**Recommendation**:
+```javascript
+// lib/iteration-engine.js
+class TestIterationEngine {
+  constructor(maxIterations = 10, timeout = 60000) { /* ... */ }
+  
+  async iterate(implementFn, testFn, analyzeFn) {
+    // Generic iteration logic
+  }
+  
+  handleTestTimeout(error) { /* ... */ }
+  handleTestFailure(results) { /* ... */ }
+  handleMaxIterations() { /* ... */ }
+}
+
+// In stable-mode skill
+const engine = new TestIterationEngine();
+await engine.iterate(
+  () => this.addErrorHandling(),
+  () => this.runTests(),
+  (results) => this.analyzeFailures(results)
+);
+```
+
+### 1.6 User Interaction Ambiguity
+
+**Issue**: Skills have unclear boundaries between "autonomous execution" and "requires confirmation".
+
+**Example**: Speed mode says "autonomous" but has multiple confirmation points:
+- Step 3 Phase 1: Wait for implementation approach confirmation
+- Step 4 Phase 2: Wait for stable chore creation confirmation
+
+**Recommendation**:
+- Define clear "decision gates" vs "execution phases"
+- Use a consistent pattern: `proposeAndConfirm(proposal)` → `execute(plan)`
+- Document *why* each gate exists (e.g., "high-level direction setting" vs "tactical execution")
+
+### 1.7 Missing Rollback/Undo Mechanisms
+
+**Issue**: Neither skill provides rollback if implementation fails or user rejects.
+
+**Problems**:
+- No way to undo file changes if tests fail after max iterations
+- No git commit checkpointing
+- Hard to recover from partial failures
+
+**Recommendation**:
+```javascript
+// lib/transaction-helpers.js
+class CodeTransaction {
+  begin() {
+    this.checkpoint = getCurrentGitCommit();
+    this.changedFiles = [];
+  }
+  
+  rollback() {
+    // Restore files from checkpoint
+    // Or create a revert commit
+  }
+  
+  commit(message) {
+    // Create git commit with changed files
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### 1.8 Scenario Matching Heuristics
+
+**Issue**: Stable mode's scenario matching (lines 184-221) uses crude keyword matching.
+
+**Example**:
+```javascript
+const keywords = choreDesc.split(/\s+/).filter(w => w.length > 3);
+const matches = keywords.filter(k => scenarioLower.includes(k));
+```
+
+**Problems**:
+- False positives (common words like "user", "data")
+- Doesn't handle synonyms
+- No semantic understanding
+- No confidence scoring
+
+**Recommendation**:
+- Use explicit scenario references in chore descriptions: `[Scenario 2]`
+- Store scenario index in work item database
+- Provide fuzzy matching with confidence scores
+- Allow user to select from ranked list if ambiguous
+
+---
+
+## 2. The Three-Phase Development Model
+
+### 2.1 Overview
+
+The methodology separates feature development into three distinct phases, each with clear responsibilities:
+
+**Phase 1: Speed Mode**
+- **Goal**: Implement ALL scoped functionality
+- **Scope**: Every feature/function defined in discovery
+- **Philosophy**: Assume happy path - valid inputs, successful operations, correct types
+- **Excludes**: Error handling, validation, edge cases, performance optimization, security hardening
+- **Output**: Working feature that passes happy path BDD scenario
+- **Target**: Internal proof-of-concept, rapid prototyping
+
+**Phase 2: Stable Mode**
+- **Goal**: Add robustness for internal use
+- **Scope**: Error handling, input validation, edge case coverage
+- **Philosophy**: Build on speed implementation without re-implementing core features
+- **Includes**: Try/catch blocks, validation checks, clear error messages, graceful failures
+- **Excludes**: Security hardening, compliance, scalability, performance optimization
+- **Output**: Reliable feature for internal/team use
+- **Target**: Internal tools, staging environments, team testing
+
+**Phase 3: Production Mode** (not yet implemented in skills)
+- **Goal**: Make feature production-ready for external users
+- **Scope**: Security, compliance, scalability, performance
+- **Philosophy**: Harden stable implementation for real-world use
+- **Includes**: Authentication/authorization, rate limiting, audit logging, performance optimization, load testing, compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.)
+- **Output**: Production-grade feature
+- **Target**: External users, public-facing systems, regulated environments
+
+### 2.2 Key Insight: Progressive Hardening
+
+The three-phase model recognizes that **internal use** and **external/production use** have fundamentally different requirements:
+
+- **Internal**: Developers know how to use the system, can handle rough edges, can debug issues
+- **Production**: Users expect polish, security, performance, and reliability
+
+Stable mode optimizes for developer productivity (get a working feature fast for internal use), while production mode optimizes for user experience and enterprise requirements.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Strengths of This Approach
+
+### 3.1 Separation of Concerns
+
+**Strength**: Clean three-phase separation mirrors real-world development practices and aligns with internal vs external deployment targets.
+
+**Why it works**:
+- Reduces cognitive load (focus on one thing at a time)
+- Prevents premature optimization and over-engineering
+- Allows rapid prototyping without getting bogged down in edge cases
+- Natural checkpoints between major phases (speed → stable → production)
+- Aligns with deployment targets (internal → staging → production)
+- Defers expensive work (security audits, load testing) until actually needed
+
+**Evidence**: Speed mode explicitly states "NO error handling" (line 21), stable mode adds robustness (line 17), and production mode will add security/scalability.
+
+### 3.2 BDD-Driven Development
+
+**Strength**: Using Gherkin scenarios as source of truth creates clear, testable requirements.
+
+**Benefits**:
+- Machine-readable specifications
+- Clear acceptance criteria
+- Automatic verification through step definitions
+- Living documentation that stays synchronized with code
+
+**Example**: Both skills rely on scenario files to drive what gets implemented, ensuring implementation matches requirements.
+
+### 3.3 Autonomous Execution with Strategic Confirmation
+
+**Strength**: Skills ask for confirmation on *approach* but execute *implementation* autonomously.
+
+**Why it works**:
+- User validates high-level decisions (architecture, approach)
+- Claude handles tactical execution (code writing, iteration)
+- Balances control with efficiency
+- Appropriate for "users who may not know how to code" (line 26)
+
+**Example**: Speed mode Step 3 proposes implementation approach, waits for confirmation, then executes autonomously.
+
+### 3.4 Progressive Complexity
+
+**Strength**: Intentional progression from simple to complex reduces failure points.
+
+**Benefits**:
+- Happy path implementation (speed) establishes foundation
+- Edge cases and errors (stable) build incrementally
+- Each phase has clear success criteria
+- Easier to debug (isolate whether issue is in core logic vs error handling)
+
+### 3.5 Comprehensive Error Modeling
+
+**Strength**: Stable mode's error handling examples (lines 80-548) demonstrate thorough error scenarios.
+
+**Coverage includes**:
+- Database errors
+- File system errors
+- Missing data
+- Invalid input
+- Timeout errors
+- Git operation failures
+- Test execution failures
+
+**Why it works**: Demonstrates real-world failure modes, not just theoretical errors.
+
+### 3.6 Iteration Limits and Failure Recovery
+
+**Strength**: Stable mode includes max iteration limits and graceful failure handling.
+
+**Example** (lines 434, 526-547):
+```javascript
+const MAX_ITERATIONS = 10;
+// ...
+if (!scenarioPasses && iteration >= MAX_ITERATIONS) {
+  console.error('Maximum iterations reached');
+  console.log('Possible reasons:');
+  // Provides actionable suggestions
+}
+```
+
+**Why it works**:
+- Prevents infinite loops
+- Forces explicit failure handling
+- Provides debugging guidance
+- Asks user for direction when stuck
+
+### 3.7 Work Decomposition Strategy
+
+**Strength**: Speed mode automatically generates stable mode chores based on implementation gaps.
+
+**Benefits**:
+- Ensures stable mode work isn't forgotten
+- Creates explicit work items for non-happy-path scenarios
+- Provides traceability (each chore maps to specific scenario)
+- Prevents "works on my machine" releases
+
+**Example** (speed mode lines 259-361): Analyzes implementation, proposes chores, creates them programmatically.
+
+### 3.8 Clear Mental Models
+
+**Strength**: Both skills use consistent structure and terminology.
+
+**Patterns**:
+- Four-step progression: Analyze → Review → Implement → Verify
+- Autonomous vs confirmation phases clearly marked
+- Consistent emoji/formatting for status messages
+- Clear error vs success states
+
+**Why it works**: Reduces cognitive load, makes workflows predictable and learnable.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Criticisms
+
+### 4.1 Architectural: Tight Coupling to BDD
+
+**Problem**: The entire workflow *requires* BDD scenarios to exist and be correct.
+
+**Failure modes**:
+- What if scenarios don't cover actual requirements?
+- What if step definitions are incorrect?
+- What if business needs change mid-implementation?
+- How to handle exploratory development?
+
+**Example**: Speed mode line 217 is the *only* verification: "Check if BDD scenario passes". If scenarios are wrong, you'll implement the wrong thing correctly.
+
+**Impact**: 
+- Assumes scenarios are perfect specifications
+- No validation that scenarios match actual user needs
+- Difficult to adapt to changing requirements
+- Requires upfront BDD expertise
+
+### 4.2 User Profile Assumption
+
+**Problem**: "User may not know how to code" (speed line 26, stable line 30) is baked into the design.
+
+**Implications**:
+- Limited ability to customize implementation
+- No escape hatch for code-savvy users
+- Difficult to intervene during execution
+- Black box execution model
+
+**Example**: User can't say "implement this specific way" during autonomous execution phases.
+
+**Better approach**:
+- Provide "expert mode" toggle
+- Allow code injection points
+- Support mid-execution adjustments
+- Provide "review-before-execute" option
+
+### 4.3 Speed Mode Philosophy: Simplified vs Wrong Implementation
+
+**Problem**: "Assume everything works correctly" (speed line 20) risks creating implementations that need rewriting rather than enhancing.
+
+**Example**: Speed mode line 240 says "localStorage for data" as a pragmatic choice - but if stable mode needs a real database for internal use, you're rewriting, not enhancing.
+
+**Key distinction**:
+- **Simplified** (good): Real database with basic queries, no error handling → Stable adds try/catch and validation
+- **Wrong** (bad): localStorage → Stable mode must rewrite to use real database
+
+**Risk**: Speed mode might choose implementation approaches that can't be enhanced in stable mode, forcing rewrites.
+
+**Updated with three-phase context**:
+- Speed: Simplified real implementations (real DB, real APIs, real file upload)
+- Stable: Add error handling and validation for internal use
+- Production: Add security, performance, and scalability
+
+This keeps the "build on" philosophy intact across all phases. Stable doesn't re-implement core logic, and production doesn't re-implement stable's error handling - each phase truly enhances the previous.
+
+### 4.4 Iteration Strategy: Blind Trial and Error
+
+**Problem**: Both skills iterate without learning from previous attempts.
+
+**Example** (stable mode lines 434-548): Iteration loop has no memory:
+- No tracking of what was already tried
+- No analysis of *why* previous iteration failed
+- No strategic adjustment of approach
+
+**Risk**: Could try the same fix 10 times, hitting max iterations without progress.
+
+**Better approach**:
+```javascript
+class IterationEngine {
+  constructor() {
+    this.attemptHistory = [];
+  }
+  
+  async iterate() {
+    const failureAnalysis = this.analyzePatterns(this.attemptHistory);
+    const nextStrategy = this.selectStrategy(failureAnalysis);
+    // Execute with adjusted approach
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### 4.5 Testing: Lack of Unit Test Strategy
+
+**Problem**: Both skills only verify via BDD integration tests.
+
+**Missing**:
+- Unit tests for individual functions
+- Mock/stub strategies
+- Fast feedback loops (BDD tests are slow)
+- Granular failure isolation
+
+**Impact**: When BDD test fails, hard to know *which* function is wrong.
+
+**Example**: Speed mode creates entire implementation then runs BDD test. If it fails, unclear which piece is broken.
+
+**Recommendation**: Generate unit tests alongside implementation:
+- Speed mode: Create basic unit tests for happy path
+- Stable mode: Add edge case unit tests
+- Run unit tests before BDD tests (faster feedback)
+
+### 4.6 Error Messages: Inconsistent Guidance
+
+**Problem**: Error messages sometimes provide actionable guidance, sometimes don't.
+
+**Good example** (stable mode line 120):
+```javascript
+console.error('❌ Feature has no scenario_file.');
+console.log('Suggestion: Create a scenario file and update the feature.');
+```
+
+**Bad example** (stable mode line 503):
+```javascript
+console.error('❌ Test execution error:', testErr.message);
+console.log('Retrying...');
+// No explanation of what to check or how to fix
+```
+
+**Recommendation**: All error messages should follow pattern:
+1. What failed
+2. Why it might have failed
+3. How to fix it
+4. What the skill will do next
+
+### 4.7 Architectural Decisions: Underutilized
+
+**Problem**: Speed mode checks for architectural decisions (line 108) but doesn't explain how they're enforced.
+
+**Questions**:
+- What if implementation violates decisions?
+- Are decisions validated automatically?
+- Can decisions be overridden?
+- How are conflicts resolved?
+
+**Missing**: No validation that generated code adheres to architectural constraints.
+
+### 4.8 Stable Mode Chore Creation: Manual Decomposition
+
+**Problem**: Speed mode asks user to confirm chore proposals (line 318) but uses automated analysis.
+
+**Risk**: User might not understand what chores are needed, leading to:
+- Missing edge cases
+- Duplicate chores
+- Insufficient coverage
+- Wrong granularity
+
+**Better approach**: Provide confidence scores and coverage analysis:
+```
+Chore 1: Handle file upload errors [Confidence: High, Coverage: Error scenario 2]
+Chore 2: Validate file size limits [Confidence: Medium, Coverage: Edge scenario 3]
+Chore 3: Handle concurrent uploads [Confidence: Low, Coverage: Not in scenarios - inferred]
+```
+
+### 4.9 Performance Deferred to Production Mode
+
+**Clarification**: This is by design, not an oversight. Performance optimization is production mode's responsibility.
+
+**Three-phase division**:
+- **Speed**: Functional correctness on happy path
+- **Stable**: Reliability for internal use (error handling, validation)
+- **Production**: Performance, scalability, security for external use
+
+**Potential issue**: If speed mode makes poor algorithmic choices (O(n²) when O(n log n) is trivial), stable mode won't catch it because tests pass with small datasets.
+
+**Recommendation**: Add basic performance awareness to speed mode:
+- Don't choose obviously inefficient algorithms
+- Use reasonable data structures (Map vs Array for lookups)
+- Production mode adds: benchmarking, load testing, scalability analysis, resource optimization
+
+### 4.10 Unclear Handoff Between Modes
+
+**Problem**: No explicit verification that speed mode completion criteria are met before stable mode starts.
+
+**Questions**:
+- What if speed mode didn't finish?
+- What if happy path test is broken?
+- What if some features weren't implemented?
+
+**Missing**: Stable mode should verify speed mode completion:
+```javascript
+// Verify happy path passes before adding error handling
+const happyPathResults = await runHappyPathScenario();
+if (!happyPathResults.passed) {
+  console.error('Cannot start stable mode - happy path broken');
+  console.log('Fix speed mode implementation first');
+  return;
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## 5. Failure Modes
+
+### 5.1 Scenario Specification Failures
+
+**Failure Mode**: BDD scenarios are incomplete, ambiguous, or incorrect.
+
+**Example**:
+```gherkin
+Scenario: User uploads a file
+  Given I am on the upload page
+  When I click upload
+  Then the file is uploaded
+```
+
+**Problem**: Scenario doesn't specify:
+- What file? (size, type, name)
+- Where is it uploaded? (URL, storage location)
+- What confirmation? (UI feedback, status)
+- What happens next? (navigation, state change)
+
+**Impact**: Claude implements based on assumptions, which may be wrong.
+
+**Consequence**: Tests pass but feature doesn't meet actual requirements.
+
+**Mitigation**: Add scenario validation step before implementation.
+
+### 4.2 Step Definition Failures
+
+**Failure Mode**: Step definitions don't correctly verify requirements.
+
+**Example**:
+```javascript
+Then('the file is uploaded', function() {
+  // Just checks that function was called
+  expect(uploadFile).toHaveBeenCalled();
+});
+```
+
+**Problem**: Doesn't verify file actually exists in storage, correct size, permissions, etc.
+
+**Impact**: Tests pass with broken implementation.
+
+**Consequence**: Bugs discovered in production, not testing.
+
+**Mitigation**: Generate step definitions with comprehensive assertions.
+
+### 4.3 Codebase Pattern Misunderstanding
+
+**Failure Mode**: Skill misinterprets codebase patterns and implements inconsistently.
+
+**Example**: 
+- Codebase uses Promises but skill generates callbacks
+- Codebase uses TypeScript but skill generates JavaScript
+- Codebase uses class components but skill generates hooks
+
+**Impact**: Code works but doesn't fit architectural patterns.
+
+**Consequence**: Code review rejection, refactoring required, technical debt.
+
+**Mitigation**: Add explicit pattern validation step.
+
+### 4.4 Git History Pollution
+
+**Failure Mode**: Multiple iterations create messy commit history.
+
+**Example**: Stable mode iterates 8 times, creating 8 commits, all for same chore.
+
+**Impact**: Unclear git history, difficult to review, hard to revert.
+
+**Consequence**: Poor code review experience, difficult debugging.
+
+**Mitigation**: 
+- Use transaction pattern (single commit per chore)
+- Squash iteration commits automatically
+- Provide clean commit message generation
+
+### 4.5 Test Timeout Cascades
+
+**Failure Mode**: One slow test causes timeout, leading to false failures.
+
+**Example** (stable mode line 500-509): Test times out, skill assumes implementation problem.
+
+**Actual cause**: Network latency, slow CI, resource contention.
+
+**Impact**: Skill iterates unnecessarily, wasting time.
+
+**Consequence**: Max iterations reached, chore marked as failed.
+
+**Mitigation**:
+- Distinguish timeout from failure
+- Retry timeouts with backoff
+- Provide manual override option
+
+### 4.6 Circular Dependencies
+
+**Failure Mode**: Speed implementation creates circular dependencies that pass tests but break at runtime.
+
+**Example**:
+```javascript
+// fileA.js
+const { processB } = require('./fileB');
+
+// fileB.js
+const { processA } = require('./fileA');
+```
+
+**Impact**: BDD tests mock dependencies, so circular dep not detected.
+
+**Consequence**: Runtime crash in production.
+
+**Mitigation**: Add static analysis step to detect circular deps.
+
+### 4.7 State Leakage Between Tests
+
+**Failure Mode**: Tests share state (localStorage, database, globals), causing flakiness.
+
+**Example**: 
+- Test 1 sets `localStorage.user = "admin"`
+- Test 2 assumes anonymous user
+- Test 2 fails intermittently depending on test order
+
+**Impact**: Tests pass in isolation but fail in suite.
+
+**Consequence**: Skill assumes code is broken, iterates unnecessarily.
+
+**Mitigation**: Add test isolation verification, setup/teardown helpers.
+
+### 4.8 External Dependency Failures
+
+**Failure Mode**: Tests depend on external services (APIs, databases) that are unavailable.
+
+**Example**: BDD scenario tests real API integration, API is down during test run.
+
+**Impact**: Tests fail, skill assumes implementation broken.
+
+**Consequence**: Skill iterates without making progress.
+
+**Mitigation**:
+- Distinguish external failures from implementation failures
+- Provide retry logic for external deps
+- Support mock/stub modes
+
+### 4.9 Scenario Evolution During Development
+
+**Failure Mode**: Business requirements change mid-development, scenarios become outdated.
+
+**Example**:
+- Speed mode implements scenario v1
+- Stakeholder changes requirements
+- Stable mode implements scenario v2
+- Speed and stable implementations diverge
+
+**Impact**: Implementation inconsistency.
+
+**Consequence**: Neither version fully works.
+
+**Mitigation**: Version control scenarios, validate consistency across modes.
+
+### 4.10 Memory Limitations with Large Codebases
+
+**Failure Mode**: Codebase analysis loads too many files, exceeding context limits.
+
+**Example**: Speed mode uses Grep to find patterns, matches 500 files, tries to read all.
+
+**Impact**: Context overflow, incomplete analysis.
+
+**Consequence**: Wrong files modified, incorrect integration points.
+
+**Mitigation**:
+- Implement smart filtering (relevance scoring)
+- Limit analysis scope (recent files, same directory)
+- Use incremental analysis
+
+### 4.11 Ambiguous Error Recovery
+
+**Failure Mode**: Skill encounters error it wasn't designed to handle.
+
+**Example**: Database schema migration needed, but skill doesn't recognize it.
+
+**Error message**: "Cannot find column 'scenario_file'"
+
+**Skill behavior**: Retries same query multiple times, hits max iterations.
+
+**Consequence**: Fails without useful guidance.
+
+**Mitigation**: Add fallback to user consultation when stuck.
+
+### 4.12 Overconfidence in Test Passing
+
+**Failure Mode**: Tests pass but code doesn't actually work as intended.
+
+**Example**:
+- BDD test mocks HTTP responses
+- Implementation has off-by-one error in real API call
+- Test passes because mock returns expected data
+- Real usage fails
+
+**Impact**: False confidence in implementation quality.
+
+**Consequence**: Bugs discovered in production.
+
+**Mitigation**: Require integration tests with real dependencies in separate validation step.
+
+### 4.13 Skill Version Drift
+
+**Failure Mode**: Speed mode skill updated but stable mode skill not updated accordingly.
+
+**Example**: 
+- Speed mode changes chore creation format
+- Stable mode expects old format
+- Handoff breaks
+
+**Impact**: Stable mode can't find/parse speed mode output.
+
+**Consequence**: Manual intervention required.
+
+**Mitigation**: Version skills, validate compatibility at handoff points.
+
+### 4.14 Human Misunderstanding of Autonomous Boundaries
+
+**Failure Mode**: User expects skill to stop for confirmation but it executes autonomously.
+
+**Example**: User expects to review each file change, but skill creates 10 files without pausing.
+
+**Impact**: User surprise, possible unwanted changes.
+
+**Consequence**: Manual rollback, lost trust.
+
+**Mitigation**: Make autonomous boundaries more explicit in UI, provide "confirm each step" mode.
+
+### 4.15 Insufficient Context for Complex Scenarios
+
+**Failure Mode**: Scenario requires domain knowledge not captured in codebase or scenario file.
+
+**Example**:
+```gherkin
+Scenario: Process payment with merchant account
+  Given a valid credit card
+  When I submit payment
+  Then funds are transferred to merchant account
+```
+
+**Missing context**:
+- Which payment gateway?
+- What merchant ID?
+- What API credentials?
+- Staging vs production?
+
+**Impact**: Skill implements with assumptions.
+
+**Consequence**: Implementation doesn't work with real merchant account.
+
+**Mitigation**: Require configuration validation before implementation.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Recommendations Summary
+
+### High Priority
+1. **Extract shared utilities** to reduce duplication
+2. **Implement file tracking database** to replace fragile git parsing
+3. **Add rollback/transaction support** for failed implementations
+4. **Validate scenario quality** before implementation
+5. **Distinguish external failures** from implementation failures
+
+### Medium Priority
+6. **Add unit testing generation** alongside BDD tests
+7. **Improve iteration intelligence** with attempt history analysis
+8. **Standardize error message format** across all failures
+9. **Version control skill dependencies** to prevent drift
+10. **Add performance scenarios** to BDD requirements
+
+### Low Priority
+11. **Provide expert mode** for code-savvy users
+12. **Add static analysis** for circular deps, code smells
+13. **Implement confidence scoring** for scenario matching
+14. **Add coverage analysis** for chore proposals
+15. **Create debugging guides** for common failure modes
+
+---
+
+## Conclusion
+
+The three-phase development model (speed → stable → production) is fundamentally sound and addresses real challenges in software development. The progressive hardening approach mirrors industry best practices:
+
+- **Speed**: Make it work (internal proof-of-concept)
+- **Stable**: Make it reliable (internal use with error handling)
+- **Production**: Make it production-ready (external use with security, performance, compliance)
+
+This separation aligns with deployment targets and defers expensive work (security audits, load testing) until actually needed for production.
+
+**Key strengths**:
+- Clean separation of concerns reduces cognitive load
+- BDD-driven approach ensures testable requirements
+- Progressive complexity prevents premature optimization
+- Autonomous execution appropriate for non-technical users
+
+**Significant brittleness**:
+- BDD scenario quality assumptions (garbage in, garbage out)
+- File discovery mechanisms (fragile git parsing)
+- Iteration strategies (blind trial and error)
+- Error recovery (no rollback, limited learning)
+
+**Recommendations**:
+- More defensive programming in skill execution code
+- Better failure mode handling and recovery
+- Clearer boundaries between autonomous and confirmed actions
+- Smarter iteration with learning from previous attempts
+- Shared utilities to reduce duplication
+- File tracking database to replace git parsing
+
+**Three-phase insight**:
+The division between stable (internal use) and production (external use) is particularly valuable. It acknowledges that internal tools can have rough edges - developers can handle them. Production must be hardened for real users. This prevents over-engineering internal tools while ensuring production systems are properly secured and optimized.
+
+Despite criticisms, the approach is innovative and addresses a real need for structured, test-driven development that works for non-technical users. With refinements around robustness and failure recovery, this methodology could be highly effective for teams building both internal tools and production systems.