jettypod 4.1.2 → 4.1.4

package/SPEED-STABLE-AUDIT.md

@@ -1,853 +0,0 @@
-# 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.