# Git Developer Performance > [Git] Use when generating developer KPI, performance, contribution value, story point, man-day, or code-quality reports from local git commit history. - Skill: `duc01226/git-developer-performance` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/git-developer-performance` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/git-developer-performance/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/git-developer-performance --- > Codex compatibility note: > > - Invoke repository skills with `$skill-name` in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude `/skill-name` references. > - Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes. > - User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex. > - Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear. > - Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written. > - Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required `spawn_agent` subagent(s) for that task. > - Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first. > - For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence. > - If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting. ## Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks) Codex uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing. **Always read:** - `docs/project-config.json` (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings) - `docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md` (routes to the full `docs/project-reference/*` catalog) - `docs/project-reference/lessons.md` (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns) **Missing/stale context route:** If `docs/project-config.json`, the docs index, `lessons.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` or the narrow setup route (`$project-config`, `$docs-init`, `$scan-all`, `$scan --target=`, `$claude-md-init`) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or `AGENTS.md` are missing/stale, ask the user to run `$sync-codex`; do not auto-run it. **Situation-based docs:** - Project structure/architecture/tech-stack/deployment/setup (any layer — backend, frontend, or infra): `project-structure-reference.md` - Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: `backend-patterns-reference.md`, `domain-entities-reference.md` - Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: `frontend-patterns-reference.md`, `scss-styling-guide.md`, `design-system/README.md` - Spec authoring, `docs/specs/` pathing, or TC format: `feature-spec-reference.md`, `spec-system-reference.md`, `spec-principles.md` - Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md` plus the spec docs above - Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: `spec-system-reference.md` and source Feature Specs under `docs/specs/` - Integration test implementation/review: `integration-test-reference.md` - E2E test implementation/review: `e2e-test-reference.md` - Code review/audit work: `code-review-rules.md` plus domain docs above based on changed files Do not read all docs blindly. Start from `docs-index-reference.md`, then open only relevant files for the task. ## Quick Summary **Goal:** Plan and generate a developer KPI-style quality-work report from local git history ONLY, so every story-point, man-day, and value claim in it rests on inspected diffs rather than commit counts. **Summary:** (read-this-if-nothing-else digest — purpose + ALL main steps) - **PURPOSE** — turn raw git history into an evidence-backed contribution report. The script collects evidence; **AI reads the changes and synthesizes the value** — a commit-list export is NOT this skill's output. - **STEP 1 — SET GOAL + PLAN.** Declare the goal, trigger `$plan`, create **one todo task per contributor**. Large task: NEVER analyze before planning. - **STEP 2 — COLLECT PACKETS.** Run the script (defaults: `--branch develop`→`main`, `--days 60`, `--out reports/developer-performance`). Traverse FULL merged history, not first-parent only. - **STEP 3 — ANALYZE PER CONTRIBUTOR.** Read direct authored patches + merge/admin commits from `work-packets/*.md`. Attribute shared feature-branch implementation to each developer's OWN direct commits — never to the merge author. - **STEP 4 — ESTIMATE via the carried `SYNC:estimation-framework`** (the AUTHORITY, and it OUTRANKS the script's legacy size-based rubric): bottom-up hours → `likely_days` → SP **DERIVED**, never assigned from cluster size. Discount generated/docs/lockfile churn FIRST. - **STEP 5 — SANITY-CHECK, then SYNTHESIZE.** Velocity plausible vs active days; separate product / infra / docs / merge-admin signal; write `quality-work-summary.md` + `evidence-proof.md` **outside `.claude`**. - **GATE** — run the skill's tests, run the command for the requested range, confirm the output path is outside `.claude`, before delivering anything. **Workflow:** 1. **Set Goal + Plan** — declare the goal, trigger `$plan`, create tasks per contributor. 2. **Collect Packets** — run `scripts/git-developer-performance.cjs` to build the commit inventory and work packets. 3. **Analyze Work** — read patches per contributor; estimate value, story points, man-days, quality impact. 4. **Synthesize Report** — write `quality-work-summary.md` and `evidence-proof.md` outside `.claude`. **Key Rules:** - Local `git` history ONLY — NEVER query external services — why: the report must be reproducible from the repo alone. - Consolidate people by identity map → normalized email → high-confidence alias (`DOMAIN\first.lastpart` matching a full name); `--identity-map` handles exceptions — why: raw display names split one person into several. - Large task — plan FIRST, then one todo task per contributor. - Script collects evidence; **AI reads changes and synthesizes contributed value** — why: this is not a commit-list export. - KPI values are evidence-based estimates, NEVER a complete HR assessment. - Report BOTH `man_days_traditional` (no AI) and `man_days_ai` (AI assistant with project context) — NEVER one ambiguous MD number. - Traverse full merged branch history, not first-parent only; shared feature-branch implementation credits each developer's own direct commits. Merge authors get integration/admin signal unless conflict-resolution changes were explicitly inspected. - Estimate implementation SP from direct authored diffs; zero-change merge/admin commits are integration signal ONLY. - Discount before estimating: generated files, migration designers, docs/spec output, i18n sorting, lockfiles, repeated follow-up churn. - **The carried `SYNC:estimation-framework` is the AUTHORITY for every SP and man-day figure** — SP is DERIVED from `likely_days`, never from cluster size — and it OUTRANKS the size-based rubric the script embeds in its generated prompt. - Velocity mismatch or recheck request → synthesize each contributor's direct authored work as one "giant commit" first, then split into atomic 1/2/3/5/8/13 SP clusters. - Persist large rechecks to a report file outside `.claude` BEFORE finalizing — why: context loss otherwise erases the evidence. - Separate product/domain delivery, infrastructure/tooling, docs/generated churn, merge/admin integration — NEVER mix them silently into one velocity number. - Velocity sanity check: both man-day ranges plausible for active days and the selected period. - Keep output outside `.claude`; default root `reports/developer-performance/`. # Git Developer Performance Use when the user asks for developer KPI/performance, productivity, contribution value, story-point estimates, man-day estimates, quality impact, or quality-work reporting from git commits. ## Required AI Workflow Before analysis, set or declare this goal: > Plan and generate a developer performance quality-work report from local git history, then execute the plan and produce the report. Then trigger `$plan` or create equivalent plan artifacts. **This skill is NOT a commit-list export** — it requires reading direct commits AND merge/admin commits per contributor, then synthesizing value. Use ultrathink/deep analysis for final synthesis when contributor count or churn is high. ## Command ```bash node .claude/skills/git-developer-performance/scripts/git-developer-performance.cjs [options] ``` Options: `--branch ` defaults to `develop` then `main`; `--days ` defaults to `60`; `--since ` overrides days; `--until ` defaults now; `--out ` defaults to `reports/developer-performance`; `--identity-map ` accepts `identity,email,displayName,id`; `--json` prints machine-readable result. Examples: ```bash node .claude/skills/git-developer-performance/scripts/git-developer-performance.cjs node .claude/skills/git-developer-performance/scripts/git-developer-performance.cjs --branch release/1.4 --days 30 node .claude/skills/git-developer-performance/scripts/git-developer-performance.cjs --since 2026-01-01 --until 2026-03-31 --out reports/dev-performance-q1 ``` ## Output Creates a timestamped run folder containing: - `summary.md` - team evidence report, authored signal sort, warnings, and integration/admin activity. - `analysis-plan.md` - AI execution plan with one task per contributor. - `work-packets/*.md` - per-contributor commit/change packets for qualitative analysis. - `quality-work-summary.md` and `evidence-proof.md` - AI-written value synthesis and proof appendix. - `analysis/` - target folder for AI-written per-contributor synthesis. - `contributors.csv`, `commits.csv`, `developers/*.md`, `data/*.json` - source evidence and deterministic aggregates. ## Analysis Rules - Read `references/analysis-workflow.md` before final synthesis. - Contributors are PEOPLE — consolidated by identity map / email / high-confidence alias, NEVER raw display names. - Count distinct contributors, then create one todo task per contributor from `analysis-plan.md`. - Per contributor, inspect direct authored commits AND merge/admin commits from `work-packets/*.md`. - Use `git show --stat --find-renames ` plus targeted patches for high-impact commits. - Several developers on one feature branch → analyze each contributor's direct commits separately; NEVER give the whole feature's implementation SP to the merge author or PR owner — why: branch ownership is not authorship. - **Estimate every work cluster per the `SYNC:estimation-framework` block this skill carries (below) — it is the AUTHORITY for every SP and man-day figure in the report.** Bottom-up hours first, then `likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor`, then `story_points` **DERIVED** from `likely_days` via the SP→Days ladder — never assigned from cluster size — plus no-AI and AI-assisted man-days and a stated confidence. - **Precedence:** where the size-based SP rubric embedded in the generated prompt (`scripts/git-developer-performance.cjs`) disagrees with the carried block, **the carried block WINS**. Treat the script's table as a legacy heuristic pending rewire, and say so in the report if the two would have produced different numbers. - Displayed theme above 13 SP → state it is a SUM of smaller atomic clusters, never one unsplit story. - NEVER add implementation SP for zero-file merge/admin commits — report them separately as integration/admin signal. - Discount non-implementation churn BEFORE estimating: generated code, EF designer snapshots, docs/specs, i18n sorting, lockfiles, repeated follow-ups. - Reconcile final SP/man-day totals against authored active days and team velocity; implausible → re-audit BEFORE delivery. - Analyze contributed value across: features/changes, bug fixes, refactors, tests/docs, integration/admin, code quality. - Many contributors → split contributor tasks across subagents with **disjoint** developer lists — why: overlapping lists double-count one person's work. - Review identity and bulk-change warnings before comparing contributors. - History incomplete, stale, squashed, or carrying bot/shared authors → state explicitly that report quality is bounded by local git data quality. ## Verification Before delivering a generated report: 1. Run `node --test .claude/skills/git-developer-performance/tests/*.test.cjs`. 2. Run the command for the requested repo/range. 3. Confirm the output path is outside `.claude`. > **AI Mistake Prevention** — Failure modes to avoid on every task: > > **Re-read files after context changes.** Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. > **Verify generated content against source evidence.** AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. > **Check downstream references before deleting or renaming.** Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. > **Trace the full impact chain after edits.** Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. > **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. > **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard. > **Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. > **Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns.** When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure. > **Keep shared guidance role-relevant.** Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols. > **Estimation Framework** — Bottom-up first; SP DERIVED; output min-max range when likely ≥3d. Stack-agnostic. Baseline: 3-5yr dev, 6 productive hrs/day. AI estimate assumes Claude Code + project context. > > **Method:** > > 1. **Blast Radius pass** (below) — drives code AND test cost > 2. Decompose phases → hours/phase → `bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours` > 3. `likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor` > 4. Sum **Risk Margin** (base + add-ons) → `max_days = likely_days × (1 + margin)` > 5. `min_days = likely_days × 0.9` > 6. Output as range when `likely_days ≥3`; single point allowed `<3` (still record margin) > 7. `man_days_ai` = same range × AI speedup > 8. `story_points` DERIVED from `likely_days` via SP-Days — NEVER driver. Disagreement >50% → trust bottom-up > > **Productivity factor:** 0.8 strong scaffolding+codegen+AI hooks · 1.0 mature default · 1.2 weak patterns · 1.5 greenfield > > **Cost Driver Heuristic (apply BEFORE work-type row):** > > - **UI dominates** in CRUD/business apps — 1.5-3x backend (states, validation, responsive, a11y, polish) > - **Backend dominates ONLY:** multi-aggregate invariants, cross-service contracts, schema migrations, heavy query/perf, new event flows > > **Reuse-vs-Create axis (PRIMARY lever, per layer):** > > | UI tier | Cost | > | -------------------------------------------- | -------- | > | Reuse component on existing screen | 0.1-0.3d | > | Add control/column to existing screen | 0.3-0.8d | > | Compose components into NEW screen | 1-2d | > | NEW screen, custom layout/states/validation | 2-4d | > | NEW shared/common component (themed, tested) | 3-6d+ | > > | Backend tier | Cost | > | ---------------------------------------------------- | --------- | > | Reuse query/handler from new place | 0.1-0.3d | > | Small update existing handler/entity | 0.3-0.8d | > | NEW query on existing repo/model | 0.5-1d | > | NEW command/handler on existing aggregate (additive) | 1-2d | > | NEW aggregate/entity (repo, validation, events) | 2-4d | > | NEW cross-service contract OR schema migration | 2-4d each | > | Multi-aggregate invariant / heavy domain rule | 3-5d | > > **Rule:** Sum tiers across UI+backend+tests, apply productivity factor. Reuse short-circuits tiers — call out. > > **Test-Scope drivers (compute test_count EXPLICITLY — "+tests" hand-wave is #1 failure):** > > | Driver | Count | > | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | > | Happy-path journeys | 1 per story / AC main flow | > | State-machine transitions | reachable transitions × allowed actors | > | Multi-entity state combos | state(A) × state(B) — REACHABLE only, not Cartesian | > | Authorization matrix | (owner, non-owner, elevated, unauth) × each mutation | > | Validation rules | 1 per required field / boundary / format / cross-field | > | UI states (per new screen/dialog) | happy, loading, empty, error, partial — present only | > | Negative paths / invariants | 1 per violatable business rule | > > | Test tier (Trad, incl. setup+assert+flake) | Cost | > | ------------------------------------------ | -------- | > | 1-5 cases, fixtures reused | 0.3-0.5d | > | 6-12 cases, 1 new fixture | 0.5-1d | > | 13-25 cases, multi-entity setup | 1-2d | > | 26-50 cases OR new state-machine coverage | 2-3d | > | >50 cases OR full E2E journey | 3-5d | > > **Test multipliers:** new fixture/seed harness +0.5d · cross-service/bus assertion +0.3d each · UI E2E ×1.5 · each new role +1-2 cases > > **Blast Radius (mandatory pre-pass — affects code AND test):** > > 1. Files/components directly modified — count > 2. Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) — count > 3. Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) — list > 4. Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) — yes/no > 5. Regression scope — areas needing re-test > > **Rule:** Complex touch → add `risk_factors`. Each downstream consumer → +1-3 regression cases. Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex → re-evaluate SPLIT before estimating. > > **Risk Margin (drives max bound):** > > | likely_days | Base margin | > | ------------------- | ------------------------------- | > | <1d trivial | +10% | > | 1-2d small additive | +20% | > | 3-4d real feature | +35% | > | 5-7d large | +50% | > | 8-10d very large | +75% | > | >10d | +100% AND **flag SHOULD SPLIT** | > > **Risk-factor add-ons (additive — enumerate in `risk_factors`):** > > | Factor | +margin | > | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | > | `touches-complex-existing-feature` (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central) | +20% | > | `cross-service-contract` change | +25% | > | `schema-migration-on-populated-data` | +25% | > | `new-tech-or-unfamiliar-pattern` | +30% | > | `regression-fan-out` (≥3 downstream areas re-test) | +20% | > | `performance-or-latency-critical` | +20% | > | `concurrency-race-event-ordering` | +25% | > | `shared-common-code` (multi-consumer/multi-app) | +25% | > | `unclear-requirements-or-design` | +30% | > > **Collapse rule:** total margin >100% → STOP, split (padding past 2x is dishonesty). Margin <15% on `likely_days ≥5` → under-estimated, widen. > > **Work-Type Caps (hard ceilings on `likely_days`):** > | Work type | Max SP | Max likely | > | --- | --- | --- | > | Single field / config flag / style fix | 1 | 0.5d | > | Add property to existing model + bind to existing UI | 2 | 1d | > | **Additive endpoint + minor UI control** (button/menu/column), reuses fixtures | **3** | **2-3d** | > | Additive endpoint + **NEW UI surface** OR additive multi-layer + new domain rule + 2+ test files | 5 | 3-5d | > | NEW model/aggregate OR migration OR cross-module contract OR heavy test (>1.5d) OR NEW UI + non-trivial backend | 8 | 5-7d | > | NEW UI surface + (NEW aggregate OR migration OR cross-service contract) | 13 | SHOULD split | > | Cross-service contract + migration combined | 13 | SHOULD split | > | Beyond | 21 | MUST split | > > **SP→Days (validation only):** 1=0.5d/0.25d · 2=1d/0.35d · 3=2d/0.65d · 5=4d/1.0d · 8=6d/1.5d · 13=10d/2.0d (Trad/AI likely) > **AI speedup:** SP 1≈2x · 2-3≈3x · 5-8≈4x · 13+≈5x. AI cost = `(code_gen × 1.3) + (test_gen × 1.3)` (30% review overhead). > > **MANDATORY frontmatter:** > > ```yaml > story_points: > complexity: low | medium | high | critical > man_days_traditional: '-d' # range when likely ≥3d; 'd' when <3d > man_days_ai: '-d' > risk_margin_pct: # base + add-ons > risk_factors: [touches-complex-existing-feature, regression-fan-out] # closed-list from add-ons; [] if none > blast_radius: > touched_areas: > complex_touched: > downstream_consumers: [list or count] > shared_common_code: yes | no > estimate_scope_included: [code, integration-tests, frontend, i18n, docs] > estimate_scope_excluded: [unit-tests, e2e, perf, deployment, code-review-rounds] > estimate_reasoning: | > 5-7 lines covering: > (a) UI tier — row applied > (b) Backend tier — row applied > (c) Test scope — case breakdown by driver, file count, fixtures, tier row > (d) Cost driver — dominant tier + why > (e) Blast radius — touched, complex, regression scope > (f) Risk factors — list driving margin; why not larger/smaller > Example: "UI: compose Form/Table/Dialog → NEW screen (~1.5d). Backend: NEW command on existing aggregate, > reuses validation+repo (~1d). Tests: 4 transitions × 2 actors + 3 validation + 2 UI states = 13 cases, > 1 new fixture → tier 13-25 ~1.5d. Driver: UI composition + new states. Blast: 4 areas, 1 complex. > Risk: base 35% + touches-complex +20% = 55% → max 3.9d → range 2.5-4d." > ``` > > **Sanity self-check:** > > - `likely_days ≥3d` and single-point? → reject, must be range > - Margin <15% on `likely_days ≥5d`? → under-estimated, widen > - Margin >100%? → STOP, split instead of buffer > - Complex existing feature touched, no regression budget in `(c)`? → reject > - Blast `>5` areas OR `>2` complex, no split discussion? → reject > - Purely additive on existing model AND existing UI? → cap SP 3 unless tests >1.5d > - NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard)? → SP 5+ even if backend one endpoint > - Backend cross-service / migration / multi-aggregate? → SP 8+ regardless of UI > - `bottom_up_hours / 6` vs SP-Days disagreement >50%? → trust bottom-up, downgrade SP > - Without tests, SP drops ≥1 bucket? → tests dominate; state explicitly > - Reasoning called out UI vs backend vs blast vs risk factors? → if missing, add > **Critical Thinking Mindset** — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. > **Anti-hallucination:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. > **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `/.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`. > > Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently. **MUST ATTENTION** resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > `*`, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at `/.md`; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user. ## Closing Reminders **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Plan and generate a developer KPI-style quality-work report from local git history ONLY, so every story-point, man-day, and value claim in it rests on inspected diffs rather than commit counts. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION main steps — execute in order, the skill AI keeps forgetting:** (1) SET GOAL + trigger `$plan` + one todo task per contributor — NEVER analyze before planning; (2) COLLECT PACKETS via the script over the FULL merged history; (3) ANALYZE each contributor's direct authored patches + merge/admin commits, crediting shared branches to the direct author; (4) ESTIMATE every cluster via the carried `SYNC:estimation-framework` — bottom-up hours → `likely_days` → SP DERIVED — discounting generated/docs/lockfile churn first, and the carried block OUTRANKS the script's legacy size rubric; (5) SANITY-CHECK velocity, separate product / infra / docs / merge-admin signal, SYNTHESIZE `quality-work-summary.md` + `evidence-proof.md` outside `.claude`; (6) VERIFY — run tests, re-run the command, confirm the output path. — why: steps buried in the middle get skipped, and a report that skips step 3 or 4 reports churn as effort. **Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):** - **Critical Thinking:** trace every KPI/value claim; confidence >80% to act. - **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity. - **MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION** estimation: bottom-up phase hours drive `man_days_traditional` (`Σh/6 × productivity_factor`); SP DERIVED. UI cost usually dominates — bump SP one bucket if NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard). Frontmatter MUST include `story_points`, `complexity`, `man_days_traditional`, `man_days_ai`, `estimate_scope_included`, `estimate_scope_excluded`, `estimate_reasoning` (UI vs backend cost driver). Cap SP 3 for additive-on-existing-model+existing-UI unless test scope >1.5d. SP 13 SHOULD split, SP 21 MUST split. **MUST ATTENTION** apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (`file:line` for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** use local git history ONLY — NEVER query an external service. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** trigger planning BEFORE qualitative analysis — this is a large task. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** default `develop`, fallback `main`, last 60 days when the user does not specify. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** NEVER present authored or integration signal as a complete measure of human performance — state the estimate's limits in the report. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** shared feature-branch implementation credit follows DIRECT commit authors, never merge authors; NEVER let raw churn or zero-change merge/admin commits inflate implementation SP or man-days. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** NEVER publish a single ambiguous MD number — show no-AI and AI-assisted MD separately. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** derive every SP from `likely_days` via the carried `SYNC:estimation-framework`, which OUTRANKS the size-based rubric the script embeds; if the two would disagree, say so in the report — why: cluster size measures diff bulk, not effort. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** write output outside `.claude` and persist large rechecks to that file BEFORE finalizing — why: context loss erases un-persisted evidence. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** add a final review task to verify report quality against the evidence packets. **Anti-Rationalization:** | Evasion | Rebuttal | | ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "Few contributors, skip the plan" | Planning is what creates the per-contributor tasks — without them contributors get merged into one blurred summary. | | "Commit counts show the picture" | Counts measure frequency, not value. Read the patches or report nothing. | | "The script already gave SP numbers" | The script's rubric is a legacy size heuristic; the carried block WINS and SP stays DERIVED from `likely_days`. | | "The merge author owns the feature" | Credit follows the direct authored diff. Branch ownership is not authorship. | | "One MD number is simpler" | Ambiguous MD is unusable — no-AI and AI-assisted are different measurements. | **MUST ATTENTION** apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting. ## Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced) Source: `.claude/.ck.json` + `.claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md` (`:full` blocks) + `.claude/scripts/lib/hookless-prompt-protocol.cjs` ## [WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason. **Generic portability boundary:** Reusable skills and protocol text stay project-neutral; project-specific conventions are discovered from docs/project-config.json and docs/project-reference/. Apply shared AI-SDD from `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md`. Read `docs/project-config.json` and `docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md`, then open the project reference docs named there. For spec, test-case, behavior-change, public-contract, or `docs/specs/` work, route through the local spec docs named by the docs index: `feature-spec-reference.md`, `spec-system-reference.md`, `spec-principles.md`, and `workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md` when specs/tests/code must stay synchronized. If either file or a required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` (or the narrow lower-level route such as `$project-config`, `$docs-init`, `$scan-all`, or `$scan --target=`) before ordinary project-specific work. Any supported AI tool may execute when this shared context and local docs are available. 1. **DETECT:** If the prompt starts with an explicit slash skill/workflow command, execute it directly. Otherwise match the prompt against the workflow catalog and skill list. 2. **ANALYZE:** Choose the best option: execute directly, invoke a skill, activate a standard workflow, or compose a custom step combination. 3. **AUTO-SELECT:** Pick the best option yourself. Do not ask the user to choose between direct execution, skill, standard workflow, or custom workflow. 4. **ACTIVATE:** For a selected workflow, call `$start-workflow `; for a selected skill, invoke that skill; for a custom workflow, sequence custom steps directly; for direct execution, proceed with the task. 5. **CREATE TASKS:** task tracking for ALL workflow/skill/custom steps before execution when the selected path has multiple steps. 6. **PARALLELIZE:** Before executing the task list, tag each task `PAR` (independent inputs + write set disjoint from every other `PAR` task) or `SEQ` (name the blocking dependency), group `PAR` tasks into waves, declare the wave plan, and spawn each wave's sub-agents in ONE message — all-return barrier per wave, fan-out one level deep unless a sub-agent's own definition authorizes further fan-out. Sequential-by-default is a defect when tasks are independent; do not parallelize shared write targets, output-consuming tasks, trivial single-file work, ordering a skill or workflow explicitly fixes, or user-approval gates. 7. **EXECUTE:** Advance per the **Workflow Step Advancement & Parallel Phases** rule in your context instructions — model-driven; a sub-agent completion advances a step identically to an inline call; a parallel-phase group is an all-return barrier (advance only after ALL members return, never serialize it) ## Shared AI-SDD Protocol Markers Source: `.claude/skills/shared/sync-inline-versions.md` ## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract > **AI-SDD Artifact Contract** — Shared spec-driven development rules stay portable and source-owned. > > 1. Keep reusable AI-SDD principles in `.claude`; put repository-specific paths, commands, owners, products, and formats in project config/reference docs. > 2. Preserve cycle: `spec -> plan -> tasks -> implement -> verify -> update spec/docs`. > 3. Trace every requirement or invariant through decision, task, TC/test, source evidence, and docs/spec update. > 4. Treat code-to-spec extraction as reference-only until accepted by the canonical spec owner. > 5. Any supported AI tool may plan, implement, review, or verify with synced context; using multiple tools is optional. > 6. Update `.claude` source first, then sync generated mirrors; do not manually edit `.agents`, `.codex`, or `AGENTS.md`. — why: mirrors are generated artifacts; hand-edits are overwritten on the next sync > 7. If `docs/project-config.json`, root instruction files, or a required project-reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run `$project-init` or the narrow lower-level route before ordinary project-specific work. > > **Active reference:** `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md` in the active skills root. --- ## SYNC:ai-sdd-artifact-contract:reminder - **MANDATORY** Apply `shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md`; keep reusable AI-SDD in `.claude` and local rules in project docs. - **MANDATORY** Code-to-spec extraction is reference-only until canonical acceptance; any supported AI tool may execute with synced context. - **MANDATORY** Update `.claude` source before syncing generated mirrors; do not manually edit `.agents`, `.codex`, or `AGENTS.md`. - **MANDATORY** Missing or stale project config, root instruction files, or required reference docs route project-specific work through `$project-init` or the narrow setup route automatically. **[TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY]** BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes. ## [LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip. Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned". **Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:** 1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value". 2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up. 3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase. 4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson. 5. **Recurrence gate:** "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip `$learn`. 6. **Auto-fix gate:** "Could `$code-review`/`$code-simplifier`/`$security-review`/`$lint` catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead. 7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run `$learn`. **[CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET]** Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. **Anti-hallucination principle:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. **AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency):** Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows. **Goal-driven execution:** Define success criteria first, loop until verified, and stop only when observable checks pass. **Tests verify intent:** Tests must protect business rules/invariants and fail when the protected intent breaks, not only mirror current behavior. ## Common AI Mistake Prevention (System Lessons) - **Re-read files after context compaction.** Edit requires prior Read in same context; compaction wipes read state. Re-read before editing. - **Grep for old terms after bulk replacements.** AI over-trusts find/replace completeness. Grep full repo after bulk edits for missed refs in docs/configs/catalogs. - **Check downstream references before deleting.** Deletions cascade doc/code staleness. Map referencing files before removal. - **After memory loss, check existing state before creating new.** Compaction wipes prior-work memory. Query current state to …(truncated)