Product Rd Workflow

Product R&D Workflow

Use this skill as the top-level workflow for new product development, feature delivery, bug handling, refactoring, release preparation, or repeated process improvement. It is not a replacement for stack-specific skills; it decides which skill should own each stage and what evidence is required before moving on.

Entry precedence. For any product idea, feature delivery, release, cross-cutting refactor, or a restart/redo of an in-flight delivery, invoke this workflow first to classify and route — naming a stack/execution skill (e.g. web-react-dev, multi-agent-delegation) does not by itself skip this workflow's lifecycle gates (design / test / release / acceptance); those still apply unless already covered.

Continuation-proposal output contract (session-wide for product delivery). Use proposed-next: <action and scope> to make a next action observable, or proposed-next: none — status only for a status-only handoff. A missing, repeated, or conflicting marker triggers intent recovery, not a stop. Follow the current explicit user request; bind short assent to one recoverable concrete proposal and its scope. Repair your own formatting without asking the user to repeat an already-clear instruction. Markers never grant authority. Recovery, ambiguity, and outcome rules: references/pre-final-continuation-gate.md (Continuation-proposal output contract).

• Restart/redo of an in-flight delivery (清除代码重新开发 / 完全重新开始 / 推倒重来 / redo-from-scratch): a restart is a fresh delivery entry; mid-delivery coding momentum is NOT a license to skip re-classification and re-enter. Re-entry means re-ESTABLISH the plan and develop against it, not code from memory — "丢脚手架 / 重来" defaults to discarding CODE, not the design/spec artifact; discarding the design/spec itself needs an explicit user opt-out after clarification (an explicit instruction to drop the design always wins). Recovery mechanics and deviation recording live in references/implementation-entry-reentry-gate.md §Baseline Selection.
• Implementation entry / re-entry gate (active plan/spec required by default). For product R&D deliveries that stay in this workflow, "start development" means first establish the current executable artifact set, then code against it; requests routed straight to another owning skill by the Go straight to the owning skill bullet below use that owner's entry rules instead. Use existing specs, implementation plans, assessment reports, issue/MR descriptions, or repo-local task docs only after reading them back or citing artifacts just produced in the active session, then checking freshness, scope, owner skills, acceptance checks, tests, stop conditions, and landing state (local status, MR-ready, landed, release-ready, or shared-status-ready). Full mechanics for every case below live in references/implementation-entry-reentry-gate.md.
  • Baseline authority: only an unmerged plan/spec on the current active delivery branch is the working baseline; anything else needs explicit recorded user selection plus reconciliation against landing evidence, deriving only still-unlanded deltas (§Baseline Selection).
  • A bare "continue"/"resume"/"go implement" is not a waiver: context summaries, compacted memory, and previous-response residue are not establishment (§Bare Continuation Scan); routing to a stack/execution skill selects the executor, not permission to implement — the first implementation edit is the gate.
  • Before that edit, record the implementation boundary: active baseline, scope, implementation-mechanics owner named and — for hands-on product/stack code — invoked/loaded in-session before the first edit, multi-agent-delegation decision when delegation is plausible, the applicable visible-UI full or lightweight record + Phase 0 with in-session product-ui-ux-design load, a feature-risk-router inventory, and test-case-first status — every pre-code gate marked triggered or not-applicable with a reason. Load references/implementation-entry-reentry-gate.md before recording the boundary: every owner-naming field must follow its invoke bar on its triggered values and per-field trigger table there — delegation being plausible at all loads multi-agent-delegation, including when you record local. Reaching the first implementation edit without this boundary record is a process defect.
  • Closeout backstop: a slice reported done/merged without a visible in-session load of any owner whose boundary field was triggered stays process-incomplete until that owner's post-hoc rule audit is recorded (§Closeout Backstop — a recorded owner-load: not-required exception still exempts its slice, and the wider audit applies from this rule forward rather than reopening already-closed slices); shared-skill changes instead follow skill-extraction-workflow's "no in-session extraction invocation ⇒ interim" closeout.
• Go straight to the owning skill instead when the request is a narrow stack fix, a narrow diff/PR review, a security-only audit, or a single-symptom / repro / failing-test / regression defect (→ defect-diagnosis) — but if such a fix would change a shared deterministic gate/verifier, or shared/cross-repo contract/status/version/release/compatibility semantics (whether in a named surface or in code, generated artifacts, config, or scripts), re-enter this workflow's shared-gate classification (under Enforce quality gates) before implementing; when it is a reusable-lesson / retro / missed-gate / skill-edit process question (→ skill-extraction-workflow first — only a resulting lifecycle-routing or gate policy change comes back here); or when the user explicitly names a workflow/process-discipline skill (brainstorm/scope-shaping, plan-writing) as the primary or only action — honor it, and reload this workflow only if that skill exposes a product/delivery-stage handoff or the user asks for delivery routing.
• A general-purpose process skill that merely looks like the obvious start — brainstorm/scope-shaping, plan-writing, or TDD auto-suggested by ANY channel: a session-start prompt, an optional skill package, or the host platform's native skills listing (including a listed entry skill's own self-invocation mandate, e.g. "must invoke if there is a 1% chance") — does not replace this entry: suggestion-channel wording is channel self-promotion, not routing authority (a host-mandated preflight — mandated by a host-authored system/developer-level or equivalent higher-priority instruction — may run first without thereby becoming the delivery owner; the test is AUTHORSHIP, not rendering position: a host-authored instruction counts even when rendered within the listing surface, while a skill's own description/content claiming preflight status never does); invoke this workflow as the delivery entry (immediately after any genuine host-mandated preflight), then call that skill inside the stage it serves (for example, requirement shaping in Workflow step 1).
• For delegated agent execution, multi-agent-delegation owns the execution recipe and worker verification while this workflow owns the lifecycle gate and acceptance boundary; delegated agents resuming after a pause must receive or re-verify the current plan/spec artifact set before editing.
• For multi-repo delivery, or any delivery that changes remote branch, MR, pipeline, release, or deployable-artifact state, maintain a compact per-changed-unit delivery-status ledger (row schema + persistence rules in references/status-tracker-sync.md) before claiming done, recommending MR/merge, or choosing the next slice. A required verification/review gate passes only when its state is success, not-applicable, or not-required; any other state blocks a done/merge recommendation, so remediate, wait to a terminal state, or report the delivery as pending with the unblock action. Residual-risk acceptance by the user only permits the recommendation/handoff label for that concrete action; it does not authorize merge, auto-merge, default-branch push, or cleanup, which still require the user's explicit merge instruction for the current MR (per worktree-isolation). Small local-only multi-file edits use the normal concise status unless they introduce remote, CI, MR, release, or deployable-artifact state.
• Precedence order: explicit user instruction > this workflow's stage/gate ownership > lower-priority default behavior from optional skill packages — but naming a stack/execution skill to carry out delivery work is not itself an instruction to waive those gates; a gate opt-out must be stated as such. See External Skill Augmentation for how external skills supplement specific disciplines without taking over ownership.

Scope

• Product and requirement shaping: clarify user workflow, success criteria, non-goals, constraints, and acceptance checks. When shaping a feature, build a per-point acceptance-coverage matrix — one independently-failable behavior = one point, plus the risk points it touches, each mapped to an observable pass/fail acceptance check; an owning spec that already carries this coverage satisfies the gate when referenced per point (name which section covers each point; unnamed/stale points are gaps to fill) — don't re-author it. Risk-point enumeration and observable-criteria detail live in references/delivery-lifecycle.md §Product Shaping Checklist.
• Implementation completeness/minimality gate. For behavior-changing delivery this gate fires — functional completeness and structural minimality are independent gates — and gaps block complete — load references/implementation-completeness-and-minimality.md before the mapping: map every in-scope acceptance point to implementation plus fresh evidence, and speculative future need and omitted required behavior both fail — the independent-gates rule and the acceptance/concept matrices live there, and every retained new concept must map to a current acceptance point or hard constraint.
• Product requirement artifacts: route clarification to requirement-intent, conditionally-required current-state evidence to requirement-baseline, scope/version/appetite to requirement-scope, and Ready-only human-readable PRD assembly to requirement-doc-writer. All four use the canonical requirement-doc-writer/references/requirement-closure-contract.md. In active delivery, each narrow artifact returns here after completion; only a standalone non-PRD narrow artifact may return directly to the user. “只写个 PRD / 不走流程”仍需 lifecycle-issued Ready；WIP/会议材料不得命名为 PRD. This workflow owns the complete lifecycle's PRD Ready / PRD Not Ready verdict and cross-owner closure coordination.
• Design routing: decide when interaction, information architecture, visual system, design-system, or UX acceptance work must happen before implementation.
• Architecture routing: decide when architecture work is needed before implementation.
• Development routing: invoke stack-specific skills, such as app-cross-platform-dev for Flutter/Android/iOS apps, miniapp-product-dev for WeChat/Alipay/Douyin/Baidu mini-programs, web-react-dev for React web, terminal-cli-dev for terminal/TUI surfaces and CLI interface design (the rendered surface — layout, input, ANSI, scrollback — plus the command/subcommand/flag/help contract, which it owns even when nothing is rendered); CLI/tooling without terminal-UI concerns must go to that language's dev skill when one owns it (go-microservice-dev, python-service-dev, nodejs-service-dev) and must not fall back to terminal-cli-dev merely because it is a command; a CLI in a language with no such dev owner stays with terminal-cli-dev as the default CLI owner, go-microservice-architecture/go-microservice-dev for Go services, python-service-architecture/python-service-dev for Python services, and nodejs-service-dev for Node.js services.
• Quality discipline: define test scope, review scope, release checks, and bug-fix verification.
• Defect routing: use defect-diagnosis for hands-on reproduction, isolation, instrumentation, fix, regression verification, root-cause analysis, and prevention routing.
• Research routing: For research groundwork behind a selection or assessment decision (技术选型、方案评估前的主题调研), this workflow must call multi-perspective-research for an evidence-grounded brief; the verdict itself stays with this workflow's gates.
• Existing-project assessment routing: for requests that ask to analyze a repository, product codebase, or project quality across architecture, implementation, tests, UI/UX, bugs, or risks, run codebase understanding first, then route each assessment dimension to the smallest owning skill instead of treating understanding as the final answer.
• AI/algorithm product launch discipline: for new/iterative algorithm capabilities, require product goal, business acceptance baseline, offline evaluation baseline, engineering serving baseline, rollout/rollback plan, and risk owner before launch. The workflow owns the gate; llm-inference-integration, testing, release, and stack skills own their narrower execution details.
• User-visible tips, nudges, release notes, and update notices: treat these as product surfaces, not harmless copy — define audience, eligibility, suppression rules, user-disable path, freshness label, repeat/cooldown policy, maximum interruption level, and success/abuse metrics before launch. Context-derived tips need a privacy review of what local behavior, files, tools, account state, or capability signals may influence eligibility; incomplete, stale, or cached update data must not imply completeness/freshness. Route terminal rendering to terminal-cli-dev, visual hierarchy/accessibility to product-ui-ux-design, behavior-changing defaults/migrations to platform-release-engineering, analytics/diagnostic redaction to platform-observability, scenario coverage to testing-strategy.
• Developer-facing surfaces (CLI / SDK / library / public API / developer docs): the user is a developer, so developer experience is an acceptance dimension. For a new/public developer surface, or a change touching onboarding, install/setup, first-success, defaults, error surfaces, or a breaking migration, prove DX by the measured onboarding journey — run the real discover→install→first-success path as a new user; do not infer DX from README / feature-list quality. Error messages are a first-class acceptance item; a non-safety default needs a safe override or a documented no-escape rationale; a safety / security default stays fail-closed (widening needs risk-owner approval; DX never licenses an --insecure bypass); breaking changes need a migration path. Journey metrics, segment proof, blocked handling, and per-surface executor routing: references/verify-developer-experience.md.
• Artifact-egress confidentiality gate: before a delivery artifact (spec/plan/requirement, status/writeback doc, launch/task card, retrospective) — or any text generated from it — crosses the local trusted boundary, run a confidentiality pass before the write/create/push/send call; it fires only on cross-boundary egress and owns only the semantic confidentiality axis that secret scanners miss. A block stops the egress but preserves the draft locally and never deletes the work; exception authority stays with the user/owner. Egress channels include chat/tracker surfaces (Feishu/Bitable writeback, shared/public docs, MR/issue body or review comment, external trackers), durable VCS/release metadata (commit message, branch/tag name, release note/changelog, CI metadata), external assistants/models, and delegated-worker prompts; the gate's own block reason/finding is itself egress — never quote the raw sensitive span across the boundary; secrets/PII/credentials/raw-logs/customer-data route to their existing owners (platform-observability redaction, defect-diagnosis evidence sanitization, the feature-risk-router security-review gate); per-category actions, severity, and the delegated-worker firing point: references/artifact-egress-confidentiality.md.
• Learning loop: after bugs, review findings, incidents, repeated friction, or external skill research, use skill-extraction-workflow to update the right skill or reference instead of leaving knowledge only in chat.
• Skill/process extraction: when asked to summarize delivery experience, preserve a workflow lesson, update a reusable skill, or decide where a lesson belongs, route to skill-extraction-workflow first. Update this skill only when the lesson changes product R&D routing, gates, ownership, or lifecycle policy.
• Upstream decision propagation: when architecture, design, testing strategy, release, observability, security, or product workflow guidance changes, treat the next R&D slice as incomplete until the downstream execution owners are named. Confirm which implementation skill, test/review skill, and release or docs owner must apply the decision, or route the gap through skill-extraction-workflow.
• Text artifact quality: when this workflow creates or updates a SOP, template, checklist, report, Feishu/Lark doc, task card, launch material, or other deliverable text, run tighten-doc before sharing, syncing, committing, or publishing. Do not ask the user for a separate optimization confirmation unless substantive decisions may change or collaborative-comment safety is at risk.
• Product R&D standards docs: when creating or updating team development standards, stack guidelines, testing standards, engineering norms, or a multi-doc handbook that belongs to the R&D lifecycle, you must use the R&D standards checklist in Workflow. For standalone wording, editing, or polishing requests with no R&D routing decision, use tighten-doc directly. Authority/sync-gate and testing-standard detail: references/rd-standards-doc-family-checklist.md.
• Standards-to-health-gate propagation: when a standards family is intended to check project compliance later, split each norm into deterministic checks and agent review checks, route the executable invariant model to testing-strategy fitness functions and the stack-specific mechanics to the owning dev/architecture skills, and do not leave conformance as a human-only checklist (mapping detail in references/rd-standards-doc-family-checklist.md).
• High-risk resilience gating: when a feature touches money, billing, quota, permissions, tenant/user data isolation, privacy, high-impact AI answers, write-finality risk, repeated submission, async job finality, or incident explanation/compensation, require an explicit resilience gate before implementation or launch; do not escalate low-risk local edits only because they write files. Write-finality classification and gate detail: references/high-risk-resilience-gates.md.

Generalization Discipline

• Keep only reusable product-development mechanics: requirement shape, ownership boundaries, skill routing, quality gates, evidence, and learning feedback.
• Do not copy project nouns, repository paths, service names, provider names, IDs, UI themes, or domain-specific cases into this skill.
• When mining an existing product or repository for a new product/team, separate each observation into mechanism, business/domain noun, and source-quality/age. Keep mechanisms, strip or anonymize business nouns, and discard or downgrade obsolete/weak technology before it reaches executable guidance.
• For generic SOP/process docs, write abstract gates and acceptance logic. Put concrete code paths, real chain evidence, dataset rows, and module-by-module proof in project launch materials, evaluation reports, or appendices. Verify the real product chain before naming modules, but do not paste evidence tables into the generic SOP body unless the document is explicitly an audit/report.
• For cross-skill extraction, conflict resolution, or generalized lesson placement, route through skill-extraction-workflow instead of restating extraction doctrine here.
• Preserve product-delivery precedence locally: root-cause real defects before workarounds, define acceptance checks before broad implementation, and prefer deterministic verification over manual inspection alone.

Workflow

At each stage boundary, walk the per-stage entry-state enumeration in Stage-Entry State Checklist — confirm every required state already exists before crossing into the next stage; it points to the owning gate for each criterion rather than restating it.

1. Classify the work.

   • Diagnostic spec-match baseline gate (before any current-state/spec-match judgment or change recommendation): when a request combines a diagnostic verb with a spec-match semantic, do NOT treat the user's single-utterance description as the authoritative spec — identify the evaluation baseline source first, and record it before the diff lands. Details live in references/diagnostic-spec-match-gate.md.
   • Product idea or feature: start with product intent, user workflow, acceptance checks, rollout constraints, and, for user-facing surfaces, an approved design or proportional design/acceptance shape before implementation.
   • Narrow product requirement artifacts follow the canonical route in Scope. Before Ready, reconcile the per-point behavior/acceptance inventory from product shaping against the closure table: every behavior has a requirement_id or a legitimate human decision marks it out / deferred; a missing row is a blocker, not proof of exclusion. Issue Ready with product, version, scope, closure_table_revision, behavior_inventory_revision, and issued_at; any bound input change invalidates it and requires re-evaluation. Active-delivery results return here; only standalone non-PRD narrow artifacts may return directly.
   • Existing project/codebase assessment: separate understanding from judgment. Use codebase understanding to map structure, entry points, flows, and constraints, then assess architecture, implementation, tests, UI/UX, bug/risk, release, and observability through the owning skills below. The evidence bar findings must clear — citation, confidence label, and the promote-from-docs / build-only-check bans — is one rule, owned by the Existing Project Assessment section; do not restate it here.
   • Combined preparation plus assessment: if the user first asks for setup, cleanup, reset, dependency install, checkout, or branch/worktree preparation and then asks to analyze/review/reassess the project, perform the preparation with the relevant safety/tooling skill, but classify the assessment portion here before loading stack-specific skills. Do not let the preparatory action hide the broad project-review trigger.
   • Quality remediation program / engineering-quality baseline: when the request is a cross-cutting, multi-phase engineering-quality initiative (质量专项 / planned tech-debt paydown / "整体架构-实现-质量偏差怎么治理"), or to establish and hold an engineering-quality baseline on an existing project as ongoing practice, load references/quality-remediation-program.md — it owns the program shape, campaign vs continuous-baseline modes, phase ownership, and per-phase exit gates; do not start refactoring before the Phase 0/1/2 exit gates pass.
   • Architecture change: define boundaries, contracts, data ownership, reliability, security, and migration before code.
   • Upstream workflow/skill change: before treating it as landed, record the owner chain from decision owner to implementation, testing/review, release/docs, and follow-up learning in skill-extraction-workflow/references/source-register.md per skill-extraction-workflow, not in chat, PR text, or commit messages. If any downstream owner lacks executable instructions, route through skill-extraction-workflow and patch the smallest owning skill.
   • Implementation change: use the relevant development skill and keep architecture decisions explicit.
   • Bug or regression: use defect-diagnosis for diagnosis, fix verification, root cause, and prevention.
   • Release or launch: define verification, rollout, rollback, observability, and owner handoff.
   • AI/algorithm launch: classify as a new capability or an iteration, then apply the per-class launch-gate focus in references/algorithm-launch-sop.md §9 (能力分类与门禁重点).
   • Unclear delivery risk: use feature-risk-router to classify risk tags, required gates, skippable gates, stop reasons, and verification evidence before selecting downstream skills. This is required for permission/access, money/quota, write-finality, data migration, cross-service API contract, AI inference/evaluation, release-ops, or multi-signal unclear verification-scope changes.
   • High-risk workflow: identify whether failure can cause financial loss, unauthorized access, cross-tenant/user data exposure, wrong high-impact AI output, duplicated writes, unclear user finality, or untraceable incidents. If yes, load references/high-risk-resilience-gates.md and route backend, client, design, LLM, and testing work accordingly.

2. Route responsibilities.

   • Product workflow owns intent, acceptance, sequencing, and cross-skill coordination.
   • Product requirement artifact owners update only their view of the shared closure table. This workflow coordinates unresolved owners and records the lifecycle Ready verdict; the writer consumes that verdict and does not make product decisions.
   • codebase-analysis or equivalent repository exploration owns initial structure/flow understanding only. It does not close quality assessment by itself.
   • Design skills own interaction model, information architecture, UI states, design-system fit, accessibility/visual acceptance, and handoff quality when the work has user-facing surfaces.
   • Architecture skills own boundaries, contracts, storage truth, reliability/security invariants, and launch readiness.
   • Development skills own code shape, generation, tests, local commands, and implementation patterns.
   • For client stack routing, use app-cross-platform-dev for Flutter, native Android, native iOS, mobile app build/release, device capability, and app-store-facing work; use miniapp-product-dev for WeChat/Alipay/Douyin/Baidu mini-program pages, host-platform capabilities, developer-tool or real-device verification, review submission, and release; use web-react-dev for React web, browser runtime, routing, forms, API-backed pages, build/deploy, and browser verification; use terminal-cli-dev for command-line/terminal/PTY-backed/ANSI-rendered/keyboard-driven/full-screen text-UI surfaces. For browser-hosted, native-embedded, or mini-program-hosted terminal surfaces, keep the host stack skill responsible for embedding, permissions, lifecycle, packaging, and release while terminal-cli-dev owns terminal rendering, input, PTY, ANSI, scrollback, selection, and cleanup mechanics.
   • For backend stack routing, use Go skills for Go services and Python skills for Python services; route mixed-language contracts to the architecture skill for the side that owns the changed boundary.
   • defect-diagnosis owns reproduction, isolation, instrumentation, fix, regression evidence, 5Why, and systemic prevention; route durable skill/reference landing to skill-extraction-workflow.
   • testing-strategy owns unit/integration/E2E layer selection, fixture strategy, CI gate design, and verification evidence.
   • test-artifact-management owns the end-to-end workflow of generating structured testcases and delivering their records to Feishu Bitable. It also owns the TC 废弃 state transition and the first step of the deprecation cascade (mark TCs 废弃, locate linked tests via the sidecar test/results/tc-map.jsonl + source tc(...) calls); see the Feature Deprecation section below for the full cross-skill cascade.
   • General Feishu Wiki and Base infrastructure has no repository-level owner skill: use lark-wiki and lark-base directly. Testcase Base/table initialization and testcase records remain under test-artifact-management; requirement records remain under this product workflow.
   • llm-inference-integration owns LLM, agent, RAG, prompt, model-routing, evaluation, replay, shadow, token-cost, and inference-specific observability work.
   • For high-risk AI or data workflows, product owns the visible degradation/refusal behavior and customer-support explanation before engineering ships fallback, retry, or downgrade behavior.
   • product-ui-ux-design owns product UI/UX design readiness, interaction model, visual hierarchy, state completeness, accessibility, launch/iteration design checks, and scenario lenses across Web, App/native, mini-program, desktop/project-native, terminal/TUI, community, finance/data, AI-workspace, and operational surfaces.
   • multi-agent-delegation owns AI-agent task splitting, delegation, staged review, diff inspection, and verification of delegated work.
     • Surface it as a candidate when work becomes parallelizable: when a multi-stage delivery develops 2+ slices that look independent, surface multi-agent-delegation as a candidate — it (not this gate) decides serial-vs-parallel after checking true independence, write-scope isolation, and the parent-verification plan, so don't auto-split. The recurring miss is failing to notice mid-delivery that work became parallelizable; surfacing it is the fix — and the outcome lands in the boundary record's multi-agent-delegation decision field (local with a recorded reason), not satisfied by a bare mention.
   • feature-risk-router owns lightweight risk classification before selecting gates; it names required and skippable gates but does not execute them.
   • skill-extraction-workflow owns generalizing and landing codebase, session, review, bug, and online-example lessons into generic, validated, automatically discoverable skills.
   • Review skills own defect discovery, severity, and risk classification.
   • Learning/maintenance owns durable updates to the smallest correct skill or reference.

3. Produce only useful artifacts.

   • Before editing code, docs, skills, configs, or release artifacts for any non-trivial task, complete enough analysis and planning to make the work reviewable; plan depth scales to risk (model in references/delivery-lifecycle.md §Plan Authoring).
   • Optional Feishu requirement record (after shaping): create one only when the user or an accepted delivery contract requests it. This workflow owns the record content (需求 ID, title, status, and version); use lark-base for the concrete Base operation and lark-wiki only when Wiki placement is requested. Create or reuse only the requested resource; do not provision unrelated project tables or impose a repository-wide schema. Its absence does not block the requirement stage unless the record was requested; when requested, confirm the write before declaring that deliverable complete.
   • Before choosing a plan shape, check whether a usable spec/plan/assessment/issue-MR/task-doc artifact set already exists; if usable, treat the slice as re-entry — cite it, name gaps, and continue under it (references/implementation-entry-reentry-gate.md §Baseline Selection); if missing or stale, create or supersede before implementation.
   • Decide explicitly whether the work needs a formal external spec-plan workflow: multi-step assessment-to-fix-to-test work always needs a reviewed plan, but upgrades to a formal external spec plan only when scale or risk justifies the extra artifact (conditions in references/delivery-lifecycle.md §Plan Authoring); if not upgrading, record why a short inline plan is sufficient.
   • Spec / repo-contract sync gate: before implementation, name the active contract layer for the slice — product/requirements spec, technical design/ADR, and any repo-local agent contract (AGENTS.md or equivalent). If the change adds/removes/moves/materially changes a stable boundary, service, workflow, generated surface, directory-local rule, or architecture decision, the same slice updates the owning spec/ADR and nearest repo-local contract (agents-file-coverage-gate owns AGENTS.md coverage semantics). Never restate an upstream authority's value sets — whenever the slice touches any upstream-owned value set (restating, freezing, or quoting), or asserts the upstream is silent on a point, or updates the owning spec/ADR / nearest repo-local contract, load references/sync-spec-repo-contract.md first; it owns the no-copy rule and its handling mechanics (pointer + revision, value-freezing, excerpt permission, upstream-silence); for any upstream the slice depends on, cite the access-controlled pointer + revision rather than the copied value.
   • Cross-repo feature coordination (one feature spanning repos) — load references/cross-repo-coordination.md before coordinating; it owns the independent cross-repo contract/status/version/compatibility gates. Route rollout/migration mechanics to platform-release-engineering, semantic conformance to testing-strategy, and monorepo-vs-polyrepo heuristics to references/modular-monolith-heuristic.md.
   • Technical design gate (architecture/contract altitude — separate from the section-4 visible UI delivery record, though one artifact may cover both):
     • Owner-skill ownership covers BOTH design substance and the review gate — invoking this router does not discharge it. When this gate is triggered and the deliverable's substance spans more than one owning skill, load the COMPLETE owner set for the touched concerns during design, not only at review; an external model/tool is supplement-only, never the substitute gate. Does not apply to a narrow single-owner task (one bug fix, implementation-only, or visible-UI-only change). Rationale and map discipline: references/dispatch-owner-skills.md.
     • Owner-dispatch firing gate (non-exempt multi-owner designs only): the COMPLETE owner set is recorded as an owner-dispatch map that gates the START of design-substance production, not only design completion — build it BEFORE drafting any design doc / test plan / architecture decision — and is re-confirmed before the first implementation edit; a partial dispatch does NOT satisfy it. The design is interim until the map shows, for every touched concern, an owner with applied evidence; an all-N-A map means single-owner work → use the exemption risk inventory below. Gate mechanics: references/dispatch-owner-skills.md.
     • Owner-dispatch mechanical firing (opt-in, per product repo). The owner-dispatch PreToolUse hook gates the first product-code edit, the Stop hook gates session close, and scripts/owner-dispatch/owner-dispatch.sh ci is the host-agnostic merge backstop; a repo opts in by committing .owner-dispatch.json, absent which the gate stays prose-only. Closeout-acquire: at closeout of a gated multi-owner delivery, owner-dispatch.sh status must read opted-in: yes — else install the backstop this delivery or record why exempt (single-owner / throwaway / ccl-skills itself). After invoking the owners and building the map, unblock editing via owner-dispatch.sh record --owners "…". Posture and install detail: references/dispatch-owner-skills.md and scripts/owner-dispatch/README.md.
     • for work that is cross-repository, multi-client, touches a contract/API with any external consumer, or is high-risk per the High-risk resilience gating scope above (treat two or more accountable teams, deployable clients, or contract/API consumers as triggering), produce a review-altitude technical design before the implementation task breakdown or code.
     • Before claiming exemption, record a short risk inventory — touched repos/clients/contracts/teams and any money/permission/data/finality paths; unknown consumer or risk scope escalates to feature-risk-router, not to self-exemption.
     • The design may live inside the formal external spec-plan when that upgrade is selected, as long as its altitude and review gate stay explicit.
     • Content: interface/contract, architecture and data flow, key decisions with rejected alternatives and rationale, failure modes, cross-repo/contract impact, and high-risk handling (idempotency, server-side quota/rate-limit enforcement, concurrency, abuse, rollback) — at an altitude a reviewer can challenge without reading code.
     • Mechanism-operability check fires whenever the design proposes new mechanical enforcement or verification machinery (a CI/merge gate, pre-commit hook, schema/signature/checksum validator, evidence or attestation apparatus, migration guard), and again when a landing withdraws or downgrades the evidentiary claim an existing mechanism rests on — load references/design-review-gate-mechanics.md before proposing the machinery, and before landing the withdrawal; the three legs, the claim-liveness rule that re-bases or retires the mechanism in that same landing, and the shared-skill-gate instantiation all live there.
     • A product/requirements spec or a code-level implementation plan does not stand in for it; a brainstorm→plan→execute pipeline lacking an explicit design-review gate does not satisfy this, so overlay the gate on top of it.
   • The technical design gate's review is recorded, not implied — the sub-rules form ONE gate, walked individually at their firing points. Load references/design-review-gate-mechanics.md when this gate is triggered — before invoking the independent review, before merging a triggered diff, and whenever the candidate diff changes after a review; it is the authoritative full text. Firing-point registry (each anchor below is binding, not a summary to skim past):
     • Recorded review artifact — a recorded independent adversarial review with concrete objections, disposition, and reviewer/tool identity is the gate for all triggered work.
     • Binds to the implementation diff — the adversarial review must cover the actual code diff before it merges or pushes to a shared branch; green tests do NOT discharge it.
     • Bounded mechanical-move exception — scoped review of a move-dominated diff only under the reference's infeasibility precondition and four conditions.
     • Cross-cutting shared-runtime primitives — explicit adversarial pass over edge paths plus a regression test per path found.
     • Implementer self-review row — persisted before the independent review in a record whose history proves ordering; a late row invalidates the review.
     • Changed candidate = refreshed row + fresh full-scope rerun — any material post-review change mechanically triggers a full-scope rerun; the author cannot narrow the rerun's scope or self-classify the change as whitespace-only.
     • Independent gate surfacing basics = process defect — repair the self-review/deterministic-gate loop before rerunning, and findings still require disposition, not waiver.
     • Green-tests-alone merge is the same defect as reaching implementation with only spec plus plan.
     • Human/team sign-off — for high-risk money/permission/data paths and any contract/API change with an external consumer, before implementation, merge, or launch.
     • Floor — reaching implementation with only spec plus plan on triggered work is a process defect, not a shortcut.
   • For any multi-step request that combines assessment, fixes, and verification, produce a task plan before editing code (required fields in references/delivery-lifecycle.md §Plan Authoring).
   • Concurrent-session isolation: when more than one session/agent/work-line may edit the same repository, give each line its own git worktree (or separate clone) on a unique per-line branch before editing — never stash another line's uncommitted changes, host-install symlinks into shared repos count a

…(truncated)