specweave 0.17.16 → 0.17.19

package/src/templates/AGENTS.md.template

@@ -17,6 +17,37 @@ This is a **SpecWeave project** where specifications and documentation are the s
 - **Context Manifests**: Load only relevant files (70%+ token reduction)
 - **Living Documentation**: Specs evolve with code, never diverge
 - **Role-Based Development**: PM defines requirements, Architect designs, DevOps deploys
+- **Bidirectional Linking**: Tasks automatically link to user stories (and vice versa)
+
+### Bidirectional Task ↔ User Story Linking
+
+**AUTOMATIC FEATURE**: When increment completes (`/specweave:done`), SpecWeave creates bidirectional links.
+
+**How It Works**:
+1. User stories extracted to `.specweave/docs/internal/specs/{project}/`
+2. Tasks.md automatically updated with links back to user stories
+3. Complete bidirectional navigation created!
+
+**Requirements**:
+- Tasks MUST have **AC**: field with AC-IDs (e.g., `AC-US1-01, AC-US1-02`)
+- AC-IDs map to user stories: `AC-US1-01` → `US-001`
+
+**Example Task** (WITH bidirectional link):
+```markdown
+### T-001: Implement User Login
+
+**User Story**: [US-001: User Authentication](../../docs/internal/specs/default/auth-service/us-001-user-authentication.md)
+
+**AC**: AC-US1-01, AC-US1-02, AC-US1-03
+
+**Test Plan** (BDD):
+- **Given** valid credentials → **When** login → **Then** receive JWT token
+```
+
+**Benefits**:
+- ✅ Navigate both directions (Tasks → User Stories → Tasks)
+- ✅ Automatic (no manual linking)
+- ✅ Multi-project aware (works with backend, frontend, mobile, etc.)
 
 ---
 
@@ -490,10 +521,66 @@ When you complete a task (mark todo as done), the hook:
 # After completing a task, run these three commands:
 
 /specweave:sync-tasks                  # 1. Update tasks.md completion status
-/specweave:sync-docs update            # 2. Sync to living docs
+/specweave:sync-docs update            # 2. Sync to living docs (THIS IS CRITICAL!)
 /specweave-github:sync <increment-id>  # 3. Sync to GitHub (replace <increment-id> with your increment, e.g., 0007)
 ```
 
+**🔥 CRITICAL: Living Docs Sync (`/specweave:sync-docs`)**
+
+The `/specweave:sync-docs` command is one of the MOST IMPORTANT commands in SpecWeave. It ensures your increment work gets properly archived in the living documentation.
+
+**How to call it** (for non-Claude tools):
+
+```bash
+# Read the command file
+cat plugins/specweave/commands/specweave-sync-docs.md
+
+# Then execute the workflow described in that file
+# The command will:
+# 1. Extract user stories from spec.md
+# 2. Distribute them to .specweave/docs/internal/specs/{project}/
+# 3. Create bidirectional links (Tasks ↔ User Stories)
+# 4. Update epic folders (FS-*) with latest content
+# 5. Generate proper Docusaurus frontmatter
+```
+
+**When to run it**:
+- ✅ After completing an increment (`/specweave:done`)
+- ✅ After making significant spec changes
+- ✅ After implementing multiple user stories
+- ✅ Before creating a PR/merge request
+- ❌ NOT after every single task (too frequent)
+
+**Two modes**:
+- `review` mode: Review strategic docs BEFORE implementation starts
+- `update` mode: Sync living docs AFTER implementation completes
+
+**Example workflow**:
+
+```bash
+# Complete increment
+/specweave:done 0031
+
+# Sync to living docs (MANDATORY!)
+/specweave:sync-docs update 0031
+
+# Result: All user stories from increment 0031 are now in:
+# .specweave/docs/internal/specs/{project}/FS-031-feature-name/
+#   ├── README.md (epic overview)
+#   ├── us-001-story-title.md (user story)
+#   ├── us-002-story-title.md
+#   └── ... (all user stories)
+```
+
+**Why this matters**:
+- ✅ Permanent archive of all user stories (never lost)
+- ✅ Bidirectional links created automatically
+- ✅ Epic folders organized hierarchically
+- ✅ Docusaurus-ready frontmatter generated
+- ✅ Complete traceability (increment → living docs)
+
+Without running this command, your increment work stays isolated in the increment folder and NEVER makes it to the permanent living documentation!
+
 **Alternative: Manual Update** (if slash commands unavailable):
 
 ```bash

package/src/templates/CLAUDE.md.template

@@ -265,6 +265,55 @@ project-root/
 
 ---
 
+## 🔗 Bidirectional Task ↔ User Story Linking
+
+**AUTOMATIC FEATURE**: SpecWeave creates bidirectional links between tasks and user stories.
+
+### How It Works
+
+**When you complete an increment** (`/specweave:done`):
+1. User stories are extracted to `.specweave/docs/internal/specs/default/`
+2. Tasks.md is automatically updated with links back to user stories
+3. Complete bidirectional navigation is created!
+
+**Example Task** (WITH bidirectional link):
+```markdown
+### T-001: Implement User Login
+
+**User Story**: [US-001: User Authentication](../../docs/internal/specs/default/auth-service/us-001-user-authentication.md)
+
+**AC**: AC-US1-01, AC-US1-02, AC-US1-03
+
+**Test Plan** (BDD):
+- **Given** valid credentials → **When** login → **Then** receive JWT token
+```
+
+### Requirements
+
+**Your tasks.md MUST have AC-IDs** for bidirectional linking:
+
+```markdown
+## T-001: Implement User Login
+
+**AC**: AC-US1-01, AC-US1-02, AC-US1-03   ← CRITICAL for linking!
+```
+
+**AC-ID Format**: `AC-US{number}-{criteria}` (e.g., `AC-US1-01`, `AC-US2-03`)
+- Maps to user stories: `AC-US1-01` → `US-001`
+- Multiple AC-IDs allowed per task
+- Task links to FIRST user story found
+
+### Benefits
+
+- ✅ **Navigate both directions**: Tasks → User Stories → Tasks
+- ✅ **Automatic**: No manual linking needed
+- ✅ **Multi-project aware**: Works with backend, frontend, mobile, etc.
+- ✅ **Always in sync**: Links created during `/specweave:done`
+
+**For complete details**: Ask me about "bidirectional linking" or check `.specweave/docs/internal/specs/default/README.md`
+
+---
+
 ## Tech Stack
 
 **Project Type**: {MONOREPO_OR_SINGLE}

package/plugins/specweave/skills/increment-quality-judge/SKILL.md

@@ -1,524 +0,0 @@
----
-name: increment-quality-judge
-description: Optional AI-powered quality assessment for specifications, plans, and tests. Goes beyond rule-based validation to evaluate clarity, testability, edge cases, and architecture soundness. Activates for validate quality, quality check, assess spec, evaluate increment, spec review, quality score.
-allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob
----
-
-# Increment Quality Judge
-
-AI-powered quality assessment that evaluates specifications, plans, and tests beyond rule-based validation using LLM-as-Judge pattern.
-
-## Purpose
-
-Provide nuanced quality assessment of SpecWeave artifacts (spec.md, plan.md, tests.md) to catch subtle issues that rule-based validation might miss.
-
-## When to Use
-
-**Activates when user mentions:**
-- "validate quality"
-- "quality check"
-- "assess spec"
-- "evaluate increment"
-- "spec review"
-- "quality score"
-- "how good is this spec"
-
-**Triggered by:**
-- Natural language: "validate quality of increment 0001", "quality check", "assess spec"
-- Slash command: `/specweave:validate 0001 --quality` (supports --export, --fix, --always flags)
-- Manual invocation when reviewing docs
-
-## What It Does
-
-### 1. Multi-Dimensional Quality Assessment
-
-Evaluates specifications across 6 dimensions:
-
-```yaml
-dimensions:
-  clarity:
-    weight: 0.20
-    criteria:
-      - "Is the problem statement clear?"
-      - "Are objectives well-defined?"
-      - "Is terminology consistent?"
-
-  testability:
-    weight: 0.25
-    criteria:
-      - "Are acceptance criteria testable?"
-      - "Can success be measured objectively?"
-      - "Are edge cases identifiable?"
-
-  completeness:
-    weight: 0.20
-    criteria:
-      - "Are all requirements addressed?"
-      - "Is error handling specified?"
-      - "Are non-functional requirements included?"
-
-  feasibility:
-    weight: 0.15
-    criteria:
-      - "Is the architecture scalable?"
-      - "Are technical constraints realistic?"
-      - "Is timeline achievable?"
-
-  maintainability:
-    weight: 0.10
-    criteria:
-      - "Is design modular?"
-      - "Are extension points identified?"
-      - "Is technical debt addressed?"
-
-  edge_cases:
-    weight: 0.10
-    criteria:
-      - "Are failure scenarios covered?"
-      - "Are performance limits specified?"
-      - "Are security considerations included?"
-```
-
-### 2. Scoring System
-
-```typescript
-interface QualityScore {
-  overall: number;        // 0.00-1.00 (displayed as 0-100)
-  dimensions: {
-    clarity: number;
-    testability: number;
-    completeness: number;
-    feasibility: number;
-    maintainability: number;
-    edge_cases: number;
-  };
-  issues: Issue[];
-  suggestions: Suggestion[];
-  confidence: number;     // 0.00-1.00 (how confident the assessment is)
-}
-
-interface Issue {
-  dimension: string;
-  severity: 'critical' | 'major' | 'minor';
-  description: string;
-  location: string;       // Section reference
-  impact: string;         // What could go wrong
-}
-
-interface Suggestion {
-  dimension: string;
-  priority: 'high' | 'medium' | 'low';
-  description: string;
-  example: string;        // How to improve
-}
-```
-
-### 3. Interactive Workflow
-
-```bash
-/specweave:validate 001
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-VALIDATION RESULTS: Increment 0001-authentication
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-✅ Rule-Based Validation: PASSED (120/120 checks)
-   ✓ Consistency (47/47)
-   ✓ Completeness (23/23)
-   ✓ Quality (31/31)
-   ✓ Traceability (19/19)
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-🤔 Run AI Quality Assessment? (Optional)
-
-This will:
-  • Evaluate spec clarity, testability, edge cases
-  • Provide detailed improvement suggestions
-  • Use ~2,000 tokens (1-2 minutes)
-
-Your choice:
-  [Y] Yes, assess quality
-  [N] No, skip (default)
-  [A] Always run (save to config)
-
-Choice: _
-```
-
-**If user selects Yes:**
-
-```bash
-🔍 Analyzing increment quality...
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-AI QUALITY ASSESSMENT
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-Overall Score: 87/100 (GOOD) ✓
-
-Dimension Scores:
-  Clarity:         92/100 ✓✓
-  Testability:     78/100 ✓  (Needs improvement)
-  Completeness:    90/100 ✓✓
-  Feasibility:     88/100 ✓✓
-  Maintainability: 85/100 ✓
-  Edge Cases:      72/100 ⚠️  (Action needed)
-
-Confidence: 92%
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-ISSUES FOUND (2)
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-⚠️  MAJOR: Acceptance criteria not fully testable
-    Dimension: Testability
-    Location: spec.md, section "Success Criteria"
-    Issue: "User can log in successfully" is vague
-    Impact: QA won't know when feature is complete
-
-🔸 MINOR: Rate limiting edge case not addressed
-    Dimension: Edge Cases
-    Location: spec.md, section "Security"
-    Issue: No mention of brute-force protection
-    Impact: Security vulnerability risk
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-SUGGESTIONS (3)
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-🎯 HIGH PRIORITY: Make acceptance criteria measurable
-
-   Current:
-   "User can log in successfully"
-
-   Improved:
-   "User can log in with valid credentials within 2 seconds,
-    receiving a JWT token with 24h expiry"
-
-🎯 HIGH PRIORITY: Specify edge case handling
-
-   Add section: "Error Scenarios"
-   - Rate limiting: 5 failed attempts → 15 min lockout
-   - Invalid token: Return 401 with error code
-   - Expired session: Redirect to login with message
-
-🔹 MEDIUM PRIORITY: Add performance requirements
-
-   Suggested addition:
-   - Login latency: p95 < 500ms
-   - Concurrent logins: Support 100/sec
-   - Token validation: < 10ms
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-SUMMARY
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-✅ This specification is GOOD (87/100)
-
-Strengths:
-  • Clear problem statement and objectives
-  • Architecture is sound and scalable
-  • Good coverage of functional requirements
-
-Areas for improvement:
-  • Make acceptance criteria more testable (2 items)
-  • Address edge cases (rate limiting, errors)
-  • Add performance requirements
-
-Recommendation: Address HIGH priority suggestions before
-implementation. MEDIUM priority can be added incrementally.
-
-Would you like to:
-  [F] Auto-fix HIGH priority issues (experimental)
-  [E] Export suggestions to tasks.md
-  [C] Continue without changes
-
-Choice: _
-```
-
-## Configuration
-
-
-
-## Usage Examples
-
-### Example 1: Basic Quality Check
-
-```bash
-User: "Validate increment 001"
-
-increment-quality-judge:
-✅ Rule-based: 120/120 passed
-🤔 Run AI quality check? [Y/n]: Y
-
-🔍 Analyzing...
-
-Overall: 87/100 (GOOD)
-Issues: 2 major, 1 minor
-Suggestions: 3 high priority
-
-[Full report shown above]
-```
-
-### Example 2: Auto-Run Mode
-
-```bash
-User: "Validate increment 001 --quality"
-
-increment-quality-judge:
-✅ Rule-based: 120/120 passed
-🔍 AI Quality: 87/100 (GOOD)
-
-[Full report shown automatically]
-```
-
-### Example 3: Export Suggestions to Tasks
-
-```bash
-User: "Validate increment 001"
-[After quality assessment shows suggestions]
-
-User: E (Export to tasks.md)
-
-increment-quality-judge:
-✅ Exported 3 suggestions to .specweave/increments/0001-auth/tasks.md
-
-Added tasks:
-- [ ] Make acceptance criteria measurable (HIGH)
-- [ ] Specify edge case handling (HIGH)
-- [ ] Add performance requirements (MEDIUM)
-```
-
-## Scoring Algorithm
-
-### Step 1: Dimension Evaluation
-
-For each dimension, evaluate using prompt:
-
-```markdown
-You are evaluating a software specification for {dimension}.
-
-Specification:
-{spec_content}
-
-Criteria:
-{dimension_criteria}
-
-Score 0.00-1.00 based on:
-- 1.00: Exceptional, industry best practice
-- 0.80-0.99: Good, minor improvements possible
-- 0.60-0.79: Acceptable, notable gaps
-- 0.00-0.59: Needs work, significant issues
-
-Provide:
-1. Score (0.00-1.00)
-2. Issues found (if any)
-3. Suggestions for improvement
-4. Confidence (0.00-1.00)
-
-Format:
-{
-  "score": 0.85,
-  "issues": [...],
-  "suggestions": [...],
-  "confidence": 0.90
-}
-```
-
-### Step 2: Weighted Overall Score
-
-```typescript
-overall_score =
-  (clarity * 0.20) +
-  (testability * 0.25) +
-  (completeness * 0.20) +
-  (feasibility * 0.15) +
-  (maintainability * 0.10) +
-  (edge_cases * 0.10)
-```
-
-### Step 3: Confidence Calculation
-
-```typescript
-confidence = average(dimension_confidences)
-
-if (confidence < 0.80) {
-  show_warning = "⚠️ Low confidence. Results may be less accurate."
-}
-```
-
-## Integration with Validation Workflow
-
-### Current: Rule-Based Only
-
-```
-User: /specweave:validate-increment 001
-↓
-Run 120 rule-based checks
-↓
-Show results: ✅ PASSED or ❌ FAILED
-```
-
-### With Quality Judge (Interactive)
-
-```
-User: /specweave:validate-increment 001
-↓
-Run 120 rule-based checks
-↓
-Show results: ✅ PASSED
-↓
-Prompt: "Run AI quality check? [Y/n]"
-↓ (if Yes)
-Run quality assessment (~2k tokens)
-↓
-Show detailed quality report with scores
-↓
-Prompt: "Export suggestions to tasks? [Y/n]"
-```
-
-### With Quality Judge (Always-On)
-
-```
-User: /specweave:validate-increment 001
-↓
-Run in parallel:
-  • Rule-based checks (120 rules)
-  • AI quality assessment
-↓
-Show combined results:
-  ✅ Rule-based: 120/120
-  🔍 Quality: 87/100
-↓
-Show detailed report
-```
-
-## Token Usage
-
-**Estimated per increment:**
-- Small spec (<100 lines): ~1,500 tokens
-- Medium spec (100-250 lines): ~2,000 tokens
-- Large spec (>250 lines): ~3,000 tokens
-
-**Cost (Claude Sonnet 4.5):**
-- Small: ~$0.015 per assessment
-- Medium: ~$0.020 per assessment
-- Large: ~$0.030 per assessment
-
-**Optimization:**
-- Only evaluate spec.md by default
-- Optional: Include plan.md and tests.md
-- Cache common patterns for 5 min
-
-## Test Cases
-
-### TC-001: Basic Quality Assessment
-**Given:** Valid spec.md with minor issues
-**When:** quality-judge runs
-**Then:** Returns score 70-85 with specific suggestions
-
-### TC-002: Excellent Spec
-**Given:** High-quality spec with clear criteria
-**When:** quality-judge runs
-**Then:** Returns score 90+ with minimal suggestions
-
-### TC-003: Poor Spec
-**Given:** Vague spec with unclear requirements
-**When:** quality-judge runs
-**Then:** Returns score <60 with critical issues
-
-### TC-004: Export to Tasks
-**Given:** Quality assessment with 3 suggestions
-**When:** User selects "Export to tasks"
-**Then:** 3 tasks added to tasks.md with priority labels
-
-### TC-005: Auto-Run Mode
-**Given:** User provides --quality flag
-**When:** User requests validation ("validate increment 001 --quality")
-**Then:** Quality check runs automatically without prompt
-
-## Best Practices
-
-### 1. Use After Rule-Based Validation
-
-Always run rule-based checks first:
-- Faster (no API calls)
-- Catches structural issues
-- Free (no token cost)
-
-Then optionally run quality judge for nuanced feedback.
-
-### 2. Review Suggestions, Don't Auto-Apply
-
-Quality judge provides suggestions, but:
-- User reviews for context
-- User decides what to apply
-- Some suggestions may not fit domain
-
-### 3. Adjust Thresholds for Your Domain
-
-Healthcare/Finance may need 90+ scores.
-Internal tools may accept 70+ scores.
-
-### 4. Use Confidence Scores
-
-If confidence < 80%, consider:
-- Spec might be too short (not enough signal)
-- Spec might use domain jargon (unfamiliar to LLM)
-- Manual review recommended
-
-## Limitations
-
-**What quality-judge CAN'T do:**
-- ❌ Understand domain-specific requirements (healthcare compliance, finance regulations)
-- ❌ Validate against company-specific standards (unless in spec)
-- ❌ Verify technical feasibility with actual codebase
-- ❌ Replace human expertise and judgment
-
-**What quality-judge CAN do:**
-- ✅ Catch vague or ambiguous language
-- ✅ Identify missing error handling
-- ✅ Spot untestable acceptance criteria
-- ✅ Suggest industry best practices
-- ✅ Flag missing edge cases
-
-## Future Enhancements
-
-### Phase 2: Cross-Document Validation
-- Check spec.md ↔ plan.md consistency
-- Verify tests.md covers all acceptance criteria
-- Detect missing ADRs for architectural decisions
-
-### Phase 3: Historical Learning
-- Compare with past increments
-- Learn from user feedback (which suggestions were applied)
-- Adapt scoring based on project type
-
-### Phase 4: Custom Criteria
-- Company-specific quality standards
-- Domain-specific requirements (HIPAA, PCI-DSS)
-- Team-specific conventions
-
-## Resources
-
-- [LLM-as-Judge Pattern](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05685) - Research paper
-- [G-Eval Framework](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16634) - Quality scoring methodology
-- [Anthropic Evals](https://github.com/anthropics/evals) - Evaluation best practices
-
----
-
-## Summary
-
-**increment-quality-judge** extends SpecWeave's validation with AI-powered quality assessment:
-
-✅ **Multi-dimensional scoring** (6 dimensions, weighted)
-✅ **Interactive workflow** (prompt user, optional)
-✅ **Actionable suggestions** (with examples)
-✅ **Export to tasks** (convert suggestions to work items)
-✅ **Configurable** (thresholds, dimensions, auto-run)
-✅ **Token-efficient** (~2k tokens per assessment)
-✅ **Complements rule-based validation** (catches different issues)
-
-**Use it when:** You want high-quality specs that go beyond structural correctness to ensure clarity, testability, and completeness.
-
-**Skip it when:** Quick iteration, tight token budget, or simple features where rule-based validation is sufficient.