scm-method 1.0.0

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

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+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. **Detect review intent from invocation text.** Check the triggering prompt for phrases that map to a review mode:
+   - "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" / "{sha}..{sha}" → Specific commit range
+   - "this diff" / "provided diff" / "paste" → User-provided diff (do not match bare "diff" — it appears in other modes)
+   - When multiple phrases match, prefer the most specific match (e.g., "branch diff" over bare "diff").
+   - **If a clear match is found:** Announce the detected mode (e.g., "Detected intent: review staged changes only") and proceed directly to constructing `{diff_output}` using the corresponding sub-case from instruction 3. Skip to instruction 4 (spec question).
+   - **If no match from invocation text, check sprint tracking.** Look for a sprint status file (`*sprint-status*`) in `{implementation_artifacts}` or `{planning_artifacts}`. If found, scan for any story with status `review`. Handle as follows:
+     - **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 to instruction 2.
+     - **Multiple `review` stories:** Present them as numbered options alongside a manual choice option. Wait for user selection. If the user selects a story, set `{story_key}` to the selected story's key and use the selected story's context to determine the diff source as in the single-story case above, and proceed to instruction 3. If the user selects the manual choice, clear `{story_key}` and fall through to instruction 2.
+   - **If no match and no sprint tracking:** Fall through to instruction 2.
+
+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 **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. 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/bmm-skills/4-implementation/scm-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+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}`
+- The Blind Hunter subagent receives NO project context — diff only.
+- The Edge Case Hunter subagent receives diff and project read access.
+- The Acceptance Auditor subagent receives diff, spec, and context docs.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`, note to the user: "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided."
+
+2. Launch parallel subagents without conversation context. If subagents are not available, generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` — one per reviewer role below — 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, resume from this point and proceed to step 3.
+
+   - **Blind Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` only. No spec, no context docs, no project access. Invoke via the `scm-review-adversarial-general` skill.
+
+   - **Edge Case Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` and read access to the project. Invoke via the `scm-review-edge-case-hunter` skill.
+
+   - **Acceptance Auditor** (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) — receives `{diff_output}`, the content of the file at `{spec_file}`, and any loaded context docs. Its prompt:
+     > You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review this diff against the spec and context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a Markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff.
+
+3. **Subagent failure handling**: If any subagent fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer name to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers.
+
+4. Collect all findings from the completed layers.
+
+
+## NEXT
+
+Read fully and follow `./step-03-triage.md`

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

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+---
+
+# Step 3: Triage
+
+## RULES
+
+- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- Be precise. When uncertain between categories, prefer the more conservative classification.
+
+## INSTRUCTIONS
+
+1. **Normalize** findings into a common format. Expected input formats:
+   - Adversarial (Blind Hunter): markdown list of descriptions
+   - Edge Case Hunter: JSON array with `location`, `trigger_condition`, `guard_snippet`, `potential_consequence` fields
+   - Acceptance Auditor: markdown list with title, AC/constraint reference, and evidence
+
+   If a layer's output does not match its expected format, attempt best-effort parsing. Note any parsing issues for the user.
+
+   Convert all to a unified list where each finding has:
+   - `id` -- sequential integer
+   - `source` -- `blind`, `edge`, `auditor`, or merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`)
+   - `title` -- one-line summary
+   - `detail` -- full description
+   - `location` -- file and line reference (if available)
+
+2. **Deduplicate.** If two or more findings describe the same issue, merge them into one:
+   - Use the most specific finding as the base (prefer edge-case JSON with location over adversarial prose).
+   - 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+edge`).
+
+3. **Classify** each finding into exactly one 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).
+
+4. **Drop** all `dismiss` findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary.
+
+5. 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.
+
+6. 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/bmm-skills/4-implementation/scm-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+---
+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 (or "0" for batch). 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 (if >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0):
+
+> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?**
+> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many)
+> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
+> 2. **Leave as action items** — they are already in the story file
+> 3. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding
+
+If `{spec_file}` is **not** set, present only options 1 and 3 (omit option 2 — findings were not written to a file). If >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0:
+
+> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?**
+> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many)
+> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
+> 2. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
+
+- **Option 0** (only when >3 findings): Apply all non-controversial patches without per-finding confirmation. Skip any finding that requires judgment. Present a summary of changes made and any skipped findings.
+- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made. If `{spec_file}` is set, check off the items in the story file.
+- **Option 2** (only when `{spec_file}` is set): Done — findings are already written to the story.
+- **Walk through each**: 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. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). 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 issues 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.

package/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/scm-code-review/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+main_config: '{project-root}/_scm/bmm/config.yaml'
+---
+
+# Code Review Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers and structured triage.
+
+**Your Role:** You are an elite code reviewer. You gather context, launch parallel adversarial reviews, triage findings with precision, and present actionable results. No noise, no filler.
+
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
+
+- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained and followed exactly
+- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only load the current step file
+- **Sequential Enforcement**: Complete steps in order, no skipping
+- **State Tracking**: Persist progress via in-memory variables
+- **Append-Only Building**: Build artifacts incrementally
+
+### Step Processing Rules
+
+1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Read the entire step file before acting
+2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute sections in order
+3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: Halt at checkpoints and wait for human
+4. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, read fully and follow the next step file
+
+### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
+
+- **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
+- **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
+- **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
+- **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
+- **ALWAYS** halt at checkpoints and wait for human input
+
+
+## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
+
+### 1. Configuration Loading
+
+Load and read full config from `{main_config}` and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+- `sprint_status` = `{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml`
+- `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
+- CLAUDE.md / memory files (load if exist)
+
+YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`.
+
+### 2. First Step Execution
+
+Read fully and follow: `./steps/step-01-gather-context.md` to begin the workflow.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+name: scm-correct-course
+description: 'Manage significant changes during sprint execution. Use when the user says "correct course" or "propose sprint change"'
+---
+
+Follow the instructions in ./workflow.md.

package/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/scm-correct-course/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+# Change Navigation Checklist
+
+<critical>This checklist is executed as part of: ./workflow.md</critical>
+<critical>Work through each section systematically with the user, recording findings and impacts</critical>
+
+<checklist>
+
+<section n="1" title="Understand the Trigger and Context">
+
+<check-item id="1.1">
+<prompt>Identify the triggering story that revealed this issue</prompt>
+<action>Document story ID and brief description</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="1.2">
+<prompt>Define the core problem precisely</prompt>
+<action>Categorize issue type:</action>
+  - Technical limitation discovered during implementation
+  - New requirement emerged from stakeholders
+  - Misunderstanding of original requirements
+  - Strategic pivot or market change
+  - Failed approach requiring different solution
+<action>Write clear problem statement</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="1.3">
+<prompt>Assess initial impact and gather supporting evidence</prompt>
+<action>Collect concrete examples, error messages, stakeholder feedback, or technical constraints</action>
+<action>Document evidence for later reference</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<halt-condition>
+<action if="trigger is unclear">HALT: "Cannot proceed without understanding what caused the need for change"</action>
+<action if="no evidence provided">HALT: "Need concrete evidence or examples of the issue before analyzing impact"</action>
+</halt-condition>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="2" title="Epic Impact Assessment">
+
+<check-item id="2.1">
+<prompt>Evaluate current epic containing the trigger story</prompt>
+<action>Can this epic still be completed as originally planned?</action>
+<action>If no, what modifications are needed?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.2">
+<prompt>Determine required epic-level changes</prompt>
+<action>Check each scenario:</action>
+  - Modify existing epic scope or acceptance criteria
+  - Add new epic to address the issue
+  - Remove or defer epic that's no longer viable
+  - Completely redefine epic based on new understanding
+<action>Document specific epic changes needed</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.3">
+<prompt>Review all remaining planned epics for required changes</prompt>
+<action>Check each future epic for impact</action>
+<action>Identify dependencies that may be affected</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.4">
+<prompt>Check if issue invalidates future epics or necessitates new ones</prompt>
+<action>Does this change make any planned epics obsolete?</action>
+<action>Are new epics needed to address gaps created by this change?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.5">
+<prompt>Consider if epic order or priority should change</prompt>
+<action>Should epics be resequenced based on this issue?</action>
+<action>Do priorities need adjustment?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="3" title="Artifact Conflict and Impact Analysis">
+
+<check-item id="3.1">
+<prompt>Check PRD for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Does issue conflict with core PRD goals or objectives?</action>
+<action>Do requirements need modification, addition, or removal?</action>
+<action>Is the defined MVP still achievable or does scope need adjustment?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.2">
+<prompt>Review Architecture document for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Check each area for impact:</action>
+  - System components and their interactions
+  - Architectural patterns and design decisions
+  - Technology stack choices
+  - Data models and schemas
+  - API designs and contracts
+  - Integration points
+<action>Document specific architecture sections requiring updates</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.3">
+<prompt>Examine UI/UX specifications for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Check for impact on:</action>
+  - User interface components
+  - User flows and journeys
+  - Wireframes or mockups
+  - Interaction patterns
+  - Accessibility considerations
+<action>Note specific UI/UX sections needing revision</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.4">
+<prompt>Consider impact on other artifacts</prompt>
+<action>Review additional artifacts for impact:</action>
+  - Deployment scripts
+  - Infrastructure as Code (IaC)
+  - Monitoring and observability setup
+  - Testing strategies
+  - Documentation
+  - CI/CD pipelines
+<action>Document any secondary artifacts requiring updates</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="4" title="Path Forward Evaluation">
+
+<check-item id="4.1">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 1: Direct Adjustment</prompt>
+<action>Can the issue be addressed by modifying existing stories?</action>
+<action>Can new stories be added within the current epic structure?</action>
+<action>Would this approach maintain project timeline and scope?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.2">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 2: Potential Rollback</prompt>
+<action>Would reverting recently completed stories simplify addressing this issue?</action>
+<action>Which stories would need to be rolled back?</action>
+<action>Is the rollback effort justified by the simplification gained?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.3">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 3: PRD MVP Review</prompt>
+<action>Is the original PRD MVP still achievable with this issue?</action>
+<action>Does MVP scope need to be reduced or redefined?</action>
+<action>Do core goals need modification based on new constraints?</action>
+<action>What would be deferred to post-MVP if scope is reduced?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.4">
+<prompt>Select recommended path forward</prompt>
+<action>Based on analysis of all options, choose the best path</action>
+<action>Provide clear rationale considering:</action>
+  - Implementation effort and timeline impact
+  - Technical risk and complexity
+  - Impact on team morale and momentum
+  - Long-term sustainability and maintainability
+  - Stakeholder expectations and business value
+<action>Selected approach: [Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Hybrid]</action>
+<action>Justification: [Document reasoning]</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="5" title="Sprint Change Proposal Components">
+
+<check-item id="5.1">
+<prompt>Create identified issue summary</prompt>
+<action>Write clear, concise problem statement</action>
+<action>Include context about discovery and impact</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.2">
+<prompt>Document epic impact and artifact adjustment needs</prompt>
+<action>Summarize findings from Epic Impact Assessment (Section 2)</action>
+<action>Summarize findings from Artifact Conflict Analysis (Section 3)</action>
+<action>Be specific about what changes are needed and why</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.3">
+<prompt>Present recommended path forward with rationale</prompt>
+<action>Include selected approach from Section 4</action>
+<action>Provide complete justification for recommendation</action>
+<action>Address trade-offs and alternatives considered</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.4">
+<prompt>Define PRD MVP impact and high-level action plan</prompt>
+<action>State clearly if MVP is affected</action>
+<action>Outline major action items needed for implementation</action>
+<action>Identify dependencies and sequencing</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.5">
+<prompt>Establish agent handoff plan</prompt>
+<action>Identify which roles/agents will execute the changes:</action>
+  - Development team (for implementation)
+  - Product Owner / Scrum Master (for backlog changes)
+  - Product Manager / Architect (for strategic changes)
+<action>Define responsibilities for each role</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="6" title="Final Review and Handoff">
+
+<check-item id="6.1">
+<prompt>Review checklist completion</prompt>
+<action>Verify all applicable sections have been addressed</action>
+<action>Confirm all [Action-needed] items have been documented</action>
+<action>Ensure analysis is comprehensive and actionable</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.2">
+<prompt>Verify Sprint Change Proposal accuracy</prompt>
+<action>Review complete proposal for consistency and clarity</action>
+<action>Ensure all recommendations are well-supported by analysis</action>
+<action>Check that proposal is actionable and specific</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.3">
+<prompt>Obtain explicit user approval</prompt>
+<action>Present complete proposal to user</action>
+<action>Get clear yes/no approval for proceeding</action>
+<action>Document approval and any conditions</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.4">
+<prompt>Update sprint-status.yaml to reflect approved epic changes</prompt>
+<action>If epics were added: Add new epic entries with status 'backlog'</action>
+<action>If epics were removed: Remove corresponding entries</action>
+<action>If epics were renumbered: Update epic IDs and story references</action>
+<action>If stories were added/removed: Update story entries within affected epics</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.5">
+<prompt>Confirm next steps and handoff plan</prompt>
+<action>Review handoff responsibilities with user</action>
+<action>Ensure all stakeholders understand their roles</action>
+<action>Confirm timeline and success criteria</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<halt-condition>
+<action if="any critical section cannot be completed">HALT: "Cannot proceed to proposal without complete impact analysis"</action>
+<action if="user approval not obtained">HALT: "Must have explicit approval before implementing changes"</action>
+<action if="handoff responsibilities unclear">HALT: "Must clearly define who will execute the proposed changes"</action>
+</halt-condition>
+
+</section>
+
+</checklist>
+
+<execution-notes>
+<note>This checklist is for SIGNIFICANT changes affecting project direction</note>
+<note>Work interactively with user - they make final decisions</note>
+<note>Be factual, not blame-oriented when analyzing issues</note>
+<note>Handle changes professionally as opportunities to improve the project</note>
+<note>Maintain conversation context throughout - this is collaborative work</note>
+</execution-notes>