# Refine

> [Project Management] Use when converting ideas to PBIs, validating problem hypotheses, adding acceptance criteria, or refining requirements.

- Skill: `duc01226/refine` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/refine`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/refine/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/refine

---


> 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:START -->

## 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`, `$scan --target=<key>`, `$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.

<!-- CODEX:PROJECT-REFERENCE-LOADING:END -->

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

> **[BLOCKING]** Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval.
> **[BLOCKING]** Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set `in_progress` when step starts, set `completed` when step ends.
> **[BLOCKING]** Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason.
> **[BLOCKING]** If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Transform raw ideas into a Definition-of-Ready PBI using BA best practices, hypothesis validation, and domain research — problem-validated, tech-agnostic, with testable acceptance criteria, estimates, and a Dependencies table — so a team can build it without re-asking what or why.

**Summary:**

- **Purpose:** turn a raw idea into a groomable, Definition-of-Ready PBI a team can build without re-asking what or why.
- **Main steps — run in order, track EACH (AI keeps forgetting sub-phases):** Phase 0 locate active plan → 1 idea intake + module detect → 2 domain research → 3 problem-hypothesis validation (GATE) → 4 BABOK elicitation → 5 BDD acceptance criteria → 5.1 AI-SDD M1-M5/M7 gate (BLOCKING) → 5.5 testability assessment → 6 prioritization + draft estimate → 7 validation interview (GATE, 3-5 Qs) → 7.5 RE-DERIVE estimate vs locked scope → 8 PBI artifact generation.
- Two gates are NON-OPTIONAL: validate the problem hypothesis (Phase 3) before building, and run the 3-5 question validation interview (Phase 7) before writing the PBI — the user decides assumptions, scope, and dependencies, never the AI.
- Acceptance criteria are BDD GIVEN/WHEN/THEN (min 3: happy/edge/error) and MUST satisfy the AI-SDD M1-M5 and M7 gate (Phase 5.1): tech-agnostic Business Intent, logical FR-/BR- IDs first, observable single-interpretation ACs, rebuild-from-scratch validity, and every AC demoable as a business outcome (M7).
- Estimate twice: Phase 6 drafts story points/man-days against draft scope, then Phase 7.5 RE-DERIVES them against the locked post-interview scope (per SYNC:estimation-framework) — shipping stale Phase 6 numbers is the cardinal failure.
- The PBI frontmatter MUST carry `story_points`, `complexity`, `man_days_traditional`, `man_days_ai`, and every PBI MUST include a complete Dependencies table (`must-before`/`can-parallel`/`blocked-by`/`independent`).

**Workflow:**

| Phase | Name                      | Key Activity                             | Output                 |
| ----- | ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------- |
| 0     | Locate Active Plan        | Load `plan.md` if in workflow            | Plan context           |
| 1     | Idea Intake               | Load artifact, detect module             | Context loaded         |
| 2     | Domain Research           | WebSearch market/competitors             | Research summary       |
| 3     | Problem Hypothesis (GATE) | Validate problem exists                  | Confirmed hypothesis   |
| 4     | Elicitation               | Apply BABOK techniques                   | Requirements extracted |
| 5     | Acceptance Criteria       | Write BDD scenarios                      | GIVEN/WHEN/THEN        |
| 5.1   | AI-SDD Gate (M1-M5/M7)    | Tech-agnostic, FR/BR IDs first, demoable | Mandate-compliant ACs  |
| 5.5   | Testability               | Test approach + per-AC outlines          | Test seed for `$spec`  |
| 6     | Prioritization            | RICE/MoSCoW + DRAFT Story Points         | Priority + draft est.  |
| 7     | Validation (GATE)         | Interview user (MANDATORY, 3-5Q)         | Assumptions confirmed  |
| 7.5   | Re-estimate               | RE-DERIVE vs LOCKED scope                | Final estimate         |
| 8     | PBI Generation            | Create artifact                          | PBI file saved         |

**Key Rules:**

- NEVER skip hypothesis validation for new features
- Validation interview NOT optional — always ask 3-5 questions
- Use project domain-specific vocabulary when available
- MUST ATTENTION include `story_points`, `complexity`, `man_days_traditional`, `man_days_ai` in PBI frontmatter
- Every PBI MUST ATTENTION include Dependencies table — types: `must-before` | `can-parallel` | `blocked-by` | `independent`
- `docs/specs/` — read existing TCs for related features; recommend test spec generation for new PBIs
- `docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md` — read when task involves business entities/models

---

## Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

- Component patterns: `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md`
- Styling/BEM guide: `docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md`
- Design system tokens: `docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md`

---

## Greenfield Mode

> **Auto-detected:** No discovered source directories and no manifest files found. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/, .claude/) don't count.

**When greenfield detected:**

1. Skip existing backlog refinement (no backlog exists)
2. Enable DDD domain modeling: bounded contexts, aggregates, entities, value objects
3. Capture constraints: team skills, expected scale, hosting preferences, budget — as input signals only
4. Use WebSearch for market research + competitor analysis
5. Output domain model artifact alongside PBI artifact
6. Increase ask the user directly frequency — validate domain boundaries, entity relationships, business rules
7. **[CRITICAL] NEVER ask about tech stack during refinement.** Tech stack decided after business analysis. Capture team skills + scale expectations as signals only.

**Be skeptical. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80%.**

---

## Phase 0: Locate Active Plan (if in workflow)

If running in workflow (big-feature, greenfield-init, etc.):

1. Glob `plans/*/plan.md` sorted by modification time, or check the current task list for plan context
2. Read `plan.md` — project scope, goals, architecture decisions, domain model
3. Read existing research — `{plan-dir}/research/*.md` for business evaluation, domain analysis
4. Read `docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md` (if exists) — existing domain entities
5. Use plan context — don't re-ask questions answered in prior steps

## Phase 1: Idea Intake & Context Loading

1. Read idea artifact from path or find by ID in `team-artifacts/ideas/`
2. Extract: problem statement, value proposition, target users, scope
3. Check `module` field; if absent, detect via keywords or prompt user

---

## Phase 2: Domain Research

**Trigger:** New domain, unclear competitors, `--research` flag.
**Skip:** Internal tooling, well-understood domain, time-constrained.

Use WebSearch with domain terms. Summarize in max 3 bullets (market context, competitors, best practices).

---

## Phase 3: Problem Hypothesis Validation

Validate hypothesis with user by asking the user directly. 42% of startups fail from no market need — validate before building.

**Skip:** `--skip-hypothesis`, validated hypothesis exists, bug fix/tech debt.

### Problem Hypothesis Template

```markdown
**We believe** [target users/persona]
**Experience** [specific problem]
**Because** [root cause]
**We'll know this is true when** [validation metric/evidence]
```

### Value Hypothesis Template

```markdown
**We believe** [feature/solution]
**Will deliver** [value/benefit]
**To** [target users]
**We'll know we're right when** [success metric]
```

### Validation Process

1. Draft hypothesis from idea content
2. Use ask the user directly to validate:
    - "Is this the core problem we're solving?"
    - "Who exactly experiences this? How often?"
    - "What evidence do we have this problem exists?"
3. Validated → proceed to elicitation
4. Invalidated → return idea for clarification

---

## Phase 4: Requirements Elicitation (BABOK Core 5)

**Think:** What information gaps exist? Which technique fills them with least effort + highest confidence?

| Technique             | When to Choose                                      | What to Extract                                 |
| --------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- |
| **Interviews**        | Deep insights needed, stakeholder perspectives vary | Stakeholder needs, pain points, constraints     |
| **Workshops**         | Group consensus needed, multiple stakeholders       | Prioritized requirements, consensus decisions   |
| **Document Analysis** | Existing systems/processes, regulatory requirements | As-is state, compliance requirements, gaps      |
| **Observation**       | Users can't articulate needs, workflow unclear      | Actual vs stated workflow, hidden requirements  |
| **Prototyping**       | Visual validation needed, UI/UX requirements vague  | Validated UI requirements, interaction patterns |

**Technique notes:**

- Interviews: Open-ended questions (why, how, what-if) → active listening → follow-up on unexpected → document verbatim quotes
- Workshops: Define agenda + 90 min timebox → neutral facilitator → round-robin/silent voting → document decisions AND dissent
- Observation: Shadow users → note workarounds/pain points → don't interrupt → ask clarifying questions afterward

---

## Phase 5: Acceptance Criteria (BDD Format)

Write GIVEN/WHEN/THEN scenarios. Minimum 3: happy path, edge case, error case.

```gherkin
Scenario: {Descriptive title}
  Given {precondition/context}
    And {additional context}
  When {action/trigger}
    And {additional action}
  Then {expected outcome}
    And {additional verification}
```

| Practice                  | Rule                              |
| ------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
| Single trigger            | "When" clause has ONE action      |
| 3 scenarios minimum       | Happy path, edge case, error case |
| No implementation details | Behavior, not how                 |
| Testable outcomes         | "Then" must be verifiable         |
| Stakeholder language      | No technical jargon               |

### Example Scenarios

```gherkin
Scenario: User creates invoice with valid data
  Given user has permission to create invoices
    And user is on the invoice creation page
  When user submits invoice form with all required fields
  Then invoice is created with status "Draft"
    And invoice appears in user's invoice list

Scenario: Invoice creation fails with missing required field
  Given user is on the invoice creation page
  When user submits form without title
  Then validation error "Title is required" is displayed
    And invoice is not created

Scenario: Approver reviews a submitted invoice
  Given approver has invoices awaiting approval
    And an invoice has been submitted for approval
  When approver opens the invoice review page
  Then the invoice is visible with "Pending Review" status
```

### Project Test Case Format

- **Format:** `TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}` (e.g., TC-GM-001)
- **Evidence:** `[Source: namespace/service/id]` abstract-anchor format (never `file:line`)
- See `business-analyst` skill for detailed patterns

---

### Phase 5.1: AI-SDD Mandate Gate (M1-M5 and M7) — BLOCKING

See `.claude/skills/shared/sdd-artifact-contract.md` → "AI-SDD Mandates (M1-M7)" for BLOCKING criteria. The generated PBI MUST satisfy M1-M5 and M7 or be reworked before Phase 8 writes it:

- **Separate intent from implementation (M1/M2):** Keep a tech-agnostic **Business Intent** narrative (Description, Business Value, Acceptance Criteria) free of framework/product/language/design-pattern names and source identifiers. Put any optional implementation hints in a clearly separated **Implementation Notes** block, and put source references only in evidence carriers (`[Source: namespace/service/id]`, `**Evidence**`). Prose stays tech-agnostic per `docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md` §3.
- **Logical Requirement ID first (M3):** Assign each requirement a logical ID (`FR-`/`BR-`) as the PRIMARY citation spine; keep `[Source: namespace/service/id]` abstract-anchor evidence (never physical code coordinates or repository-root paths — those live only in the provenance sidecar) as a SECONDARY carrier in a separate evidence column/section — KEEP it, never remove it.
- **Testable, observable acceptance criteria (M4):** Every acceptance criterion has ONE valid interpretation, observable completion states, named failure modes, and NO implementation details. Reject vague phrasing ("handle appropriately", "fast", "user-friendly").
- **Rebuild-from-scratch validation (M5):** Before emitting, confirm a competent team with zero codebase knowledge could re-implement identical business behavior on ANY stack from the PBI alone. If a reader would have to guess a rule, limit, role, or failure mode, add it as a clarification — never guess.
- **Business-visibility (M7):** Apply the demo test to each acceptance criterion's BODY: _"what would a stakeholder SEE change?"_ — no answer → FAIL as TECHNICAL-ONLY and drop it from the PBI. Every `GIVEN` = a state a user could arrange; every `WHEN` = an action a user could take; every `THEN` = an outcome a user could see. FAIL a `WHEN` that is an invocation (a handler runs, a consumer receives, a job fires, data syncs) or a `THEN` asserting schema/type/nullability/call-count. Judge the BODY, never the AC's title or ID. Never derive the AC count from an architecture inventory (handlers, consumers, jobs) — that count moves when the system is re-architected though no business behavior changed, falsifying M5.

> **M1 governs vocabulary; M7 governs subject matter.** A technical AC in impeccably tech-free prose satisfies M1 while violating M7 — _"the system correctly synchronizes the record"_ names no framework and is still a technical case in a business costume. That gap is the most common way business specs rot. Ask what a user could SEE, not which words were used.

---

### Phase 5.5: Testability Assessment

Use ask the user directly with 2-3 questions:

1. "Which testing approach fits this PBI?"
    - TDD-first: Write test specs before implementation (Recommended for complex features)
    - Implement-first: Build feature, then create test specs
    - Parallel: Spec and implement simultaneously

2. "What test levels are needed?"
    - Integration tests only (Recommended for backend CQRS)
    - Integration + E2E
    - Unit + Integration + E2E

For EACH acceptance criterion, generate corresponding test case outline:

| AC   | Test Outline                                               | Priority |
| ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | -------- |
| AC-1 | TC: Create invoice with valid data → verify persisted      | P0       |
| AC-2 | TC: Create invoice without title → verify validation error | P1       |

Seed for `$spec [mode=tests]` if user chooses TDD-first. Document in PBI under `## Testability Assessment`.

---

## Phase 6: Prioritization & Estimation

Apply RICE score or MoSCoW for priority. Estimate using **Story Points (Modified Fibonacci 1-21)**.

### Quick RICE Score

```
Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

Reach: Users affected per quarter (100, 500, 1000+)
Impact: 0.25 (minimal) | 0.5 (low) | 1 (medium) | 2 (high) | 3 (massive)
Confidence: 0.5 (low) | 0.8 (medium) | 1.0 (high)
Effort: Story points (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21)
```

### MoSCoW Categories

| Category        | Meaning                  | Action              |
| --------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------- |
| **Must Have**   | Critical, non-negotiable | Include in MVP      |
| **Should Have** | Important but not vital  | Plan for release    |
| **Could Have**  | Nice to have, low effort | If time permits     |
| **Won't Have**  | Out of scope this cycle  | Document for future |

---

## Phase 7: Validation Interview (MANDATORY)

Generate 3-5 questions covering assumptions, scope, dependencies, edge cases. Use ask the user directly. Document in PBI. **NOT optional.**

| Category            | Example Question                                                            |
| ------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Assumptions**     | "We assume X is true. Correct?"                                             |
| **Scope**           | "Should Y be included or explicitly excluded?"                              |
| **Dependencies**    | "This requires Z. Is that available?"                                       |
| **Edge Cases**      | "What happens when data is empty/null?"                                     |
| **Business Impact** | "Will this affect existing reports/workflows?"                              |
| **Entities**        | "Create new entity or extend existing X?"                                   |
| **Prod Readiness**  | "Does this feature need linting, error handling, loading, or Docker setup?" |
| **Authorization**   | "Who can perform this action? What roles/permissions are needed?"           |
| **Seed Data**       | "Does this feature need reference/lookup data to function?"                 |
| **Data Migration**  | "Does this change entity schema? Is data transformation needed?"            |

1. Generate 3-5 questions from assumptions, scope, dependencies
2. Use ask the user directly to interview
3. Document in PBI under `## Validation Summary`
4. Update PBI based on answers

### Validation Output Format

```markdown
## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Assumptions Confirmed

- {assumption}: Confirmed/Modified

### Open Items

- [ ] {follow-up items}
```

---

## Cross-Cutting & Production Readiness

> Capture in PBI template sections: Production Readiness Concerns, Authorization & Access Control, Seed Data, Data Migration.

---

## Phase 7.5: Re-evaluate Estimation (MANDATORY — runs after Validation Interview)

> **Why this phase exists:** Phase 6 estimation runs against a draft scope. Phase 7 (Validation Interview) and Cross-Cutting capture often resolve unknowns, add constraints, or trim/expand scope. The numbers in `story_points`, `complexity`, `man_days_traditional`, `man_days_ai` MUST be re-derived against the locked scope BEFORE Phase 8 writes them into the PBI frontmatter. Estimating once at draft and forgetting is the #1 source of estimation drift in PBIs.

### Inputs (locked by end of Phase 7)

- Confirmed assumptions, scope inclusions/exclusions
- Authorization, seed data, migration, prod-readiness decisions
- Newly discovered dependencies or edge cases
- Any rescoping the user requested during validation

### Re-derive (per `SYNC:estimation-framework`)

1. Walk the **locked** scope acceptance criteria + cross-cutting concerns; assign hours per slice.
2. `bottom_up_hours = Σ slice_hours` (use the SP table mapping in Phase 6, not eyeballing).
3. `likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6)` × productivity factor for the team/AI mode.
4. Recompute `risk_margin_pct` based on remaining unknowns AFTER Phase 7 (margin should usually shrink because validation removed unknowns; rises only if new risks surfaced).
5. Recompute `min-max range` from the new likely_days ± margin.
6. Re-pick the closest Fibonacci `story_points` and `complexity` bucket from the re-derived likely_days.

### Compare against Phase 6 draft estimate

Compute `delta_pct = (new_likely_days - draft_likely_days) / draft_likely_days × 100`.

| Delta             | Action                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| ----------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `\|delta\| ≤ 20%` | Keep draft estimate. Note `reestimate_delta_pct: <signed>` + `reestimate_reason: "within tolerance, no change"` in PBI frontmatter for transparency.                                                                                                                                                                               |
| `\|delta\| > 20%` | UPDATE `story_points`, `complexity`, `man_days_traditional`, `man_days_ai`. Add `reestimate_delta_pct: <signed>` + 1-line `reestimate_reason` explaining what changed (e.g., "auth scope confirmed wider", "seed data dropped per validation").                                                                                    |
| `\|delta\| > 50%` | UPDATE values AND flag `SHOULD-RESCOPE`. Surface to user by asking the user directly BEFORE Phase 8 writes the PBI: "Re-estimate is +/-X% vs original. Options: (a) accept new estimate as-is, (b) split into 2 PBIs, (c) trim scope back to original estimate, (d) defer." Record the user's decision in `## Validation Summary`. |

### Output

- Updated estimation values (carry into Phase 8 frontmatter)
- New frontmatter fields: `reestimate_delta_pct`, `reestimate_reason` (always populate even when within tolerance — creates a paper trail for retrospective comparison against actual implementation time)
- If rescoped: updated acceptance criteria/scope sections reflecting the user's choice

> **Run this re-estimation phase against the locked scope — never skip it.** A PBI that ships with stale Phase 6 estimates is the source of unreliable velocity data. The whole point is to make the post-validation numbers — not the pre-validation guesses — the ones the team commits to.

---

## Phase 8: PBI Artifact Generation

**Path:** `team-artifacts/pbis/{YYMMDD}-pbi-{slug}.md` | **ID Pattern:** `PBI-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}`

> **Artifact Path (canonical convention)** — Command `$refine` → base path `team-artifacts/pbis/`, role token `ba`, type `pbi`. General filename pattern: `{YYMMDD}-{role}-{type}-{slug}.md` → e.g. `260119-ba-pbi-invoice-approval.md`. Slug = lowercased basename, non-alphanumeric → `-`, trimmed, max 50 chars.

### PBI Template

```markdown
---
id: PBI-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}
title: '{Brief descriptive title}'
module: '{ModuleName — detect from project-config.json modules[]}'
priority: Must Have | Should Have | Could Have | Won't Have
rank: { numeric 1-999, ascending — populated/updated by $prioritize during cross-PBI ranking; omit until prioritized }
story_points: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21
complexity: Low | Medium | High | Very High
man_days_traditional: '{ Xd (Yd code + Zd test) — from SP table }'
man_days_ai: '{ Xd (Yd code + Zd test) — from SP table with AI }'
status: draft | refined | ready | in_progress | done
rice_score: { calculated }
created: '{YYYY-MM-DD}'
source_idea: '{idea artifact path or ID}'
---

# {PBI Title}

> **Business Intent (tech-agnostic — M1/M2):** Description, Business Value, Business Rules, and Acceptance Criteria below describe observable business behavior only — no framework/product/language/design-pattern names, no source identifiers. Keep implementation hints in `## Implementation Notes` and source references in evidence carriers.

## Requirement IDs (M3 — logical-IDs-first)

| Logical ID   | Statement (tech-agnostic) | Evidence (secondary, re-anchorable)       |
| ------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
| FR-{MOD}-XXX | {functional requirement}  | `[Source: path:line]` or `TBD (pre-impl)` |
| BR-{MOD}-XXX | {business rule}           | `[Source: path:line]` or `TBD (pre-impl)` |

## Description

**As a** {user role}
**I want** {capability}
**So that** {business value}

## Business Value

- {Quantified benefit 1}
- {Quantified benefit 2}

## Problem Hypothesis

**We believe** {target users}
**Experience** {specific problem}
**Because** {root cause}
**We'll know this is true when** {validation metric}

## Business Rules

- BR-{MOD}-XXX: {Rule description}

## Acceptance Criteria

### AC-1: {Title}

Scenario: {Happy path}
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}

### AC-2: {Title}

Scenario: {Edge case}
Given {edge state}
When {action}
Then {handling}

### AC-3: {Title}

Scenario: {Error case}
Given {context}
When {invalid action}
Then error "{message}"

## Testability Assessment

| AC   | Test Outline       | Priority |
| ---- | ------------------ | -------- |
| AC-1 | {test description} | P0       |
| AC-2 | {test description} | P1       |

## Out of Scope

- {Explicitly excluded item 1}
- {Explicitly excluded item 2}

## Dependencies

| Dependency            | Type         | Description                    |
| --------------------- | ------------ | ------------------------------ |
| {PBI/service/feature} | must-before  | {Why this must be done first}  |
| {PBI/service/feature} | can-parallel | {Why this can run in parallel} |
| {PBI/service/feature} | blocked-by   | {What blocks this PBI}         |
| -                     | independent  | {No dependencies — first item} |

## Production Readiness Concerns

| Concern                | Required        | Notes                                                                   |
| ---------------------- | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Code linting/analyzers | Yes/No/Existing | {tool preference or "scaffold default"}                                 |
| Error handling setup   | Yes/No/Existing | {pattern: toast/inline/error-page}                                      |
| Loading indicators     | Yes/No/Existing | {pattern: spinner/skeleton/progress}                                    |
| Docker integration     | Yes/No/Existing | {scope: infra-only/full/none}                                           |
| CI/CD quality gates    | Yes/No/Existing | {mutation-score gate (line-coverage diagnostic only), lint enforcement} |
| Security scanning      | Yes/No/Existing | {dependency audit, SAST}                                                |

## Authorization & Access Control

| Role   | Can Create | Can Read | Can Update | Can Delete | Notes         |
| ------ | ---------- | -------- | ---------- | ---------- | ------------- |
| {Role} | ✅/❌      | ✅/❌    | ✅/❌      | ✅/❌      | {scope notes} |

**New permissions needed:** {Yes/No — list if yes}
**Multi-tenant isolation:** {Yes/No}

## Seed Data Requirements

| Data Type          | Description                          | Owner        | Required |
| ------------------ | ------------------------------------ | ------------ | -------- |
| Reference data     | {lookups, statuses, types}           | Application  | Yes/No   |
| Configuration data | {default settings}                   | Application  | Yes/No   |
| Test seed data     | {entities for integration tests}     | Test project | Yes/No   |
| Performance data   | {large-volume data for load testing} | Test tooling | Yes/No   |

> If no seed data needed: `N/A — no seed data required for this feature.`

## Data Migration

| Change                      | Type                                   | Backward Compatible | Reversible |
| --------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------- | ---------- |
| {schema change description} | Add field / Remove field / Type change | Yes/No              | Yes/No     |

> If no schema changes: `N/A — no schema changes required.`

## Domain Context

**Entities:** {Entity1}, {Entity2}
**Related Features:** {feature doc paths}

## Implementation Notes

> Optional, clearly separated from Business Intent. Implementation hints / source identifiers may appear here and in evidence carriers only — never in the tech-agnostic sections above. If none: `N/A — no implementation hints; rebuild from Business Intent + Requirement IDs.`

## UI Layout

**Design Spec:** {link to the `$design-spec` artifact — or inline UI specs ref — that owns this PBI's screen/component design. REQUIRED for any PBI with UI work. Produce it AFTER inventorying existing UI + connected flows (per `SYNC:existing-ui-research`) so it faithfully matches the current UI system. If backend-only: `N/A — Backend-only change. No UI affected.`}

### Wireframe

{ASCII wireframe using box-drawing characters}

**Layout:** {description with approximate proportions/dimensions}

### Components

- **{ComponentName}** — {behavior description} _(tier: common | domain-shared | page/app)_

> Classify per **Component Hierarchy** in UI wireframe protocol — search existing libs before proposing new components.

### States

| State   | Behavior                   |
| ------- | -------------------------- |
| Default | {what user sees initially} |
| Loading | {spinner/skeleton}         |
| Empty   | {empty state message}      |
| Error   | {error handling}           |

> If backend-only: `## UI Layout` → `N/A — Backend-only change. No UI affected.`

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Assumptions Confirmed

- {assumption}: Confirmed/Modified

### Open Items

- [ ] {follow-up items}
```

---

## Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Anti-Pattern                   | Better Approach                     |
| ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------- |
| Refining vague ideas           | Return to `$idea` for clarification |
| Skipping hypothesis validation | Always run Phase 3 for new features |
| Solution-first thinking        | Start with problem, not solution    |
| Generic acceptance criteria    | Use GIVEN/WHEN/THEN with specifics  |
| Ignoring domain context        | Load project docs if applicable     |
| Too large PBI (XL+)            | Break into smaller items            |
| Missing "Out of Scope"         | Explicitly list exclusions          |
| Assuming instead of asking     | Run validation interview            |

---

## Key Rules

- **Every PBI MUST ATTENTION include Dependencies table** — types: `must-before`, `can-parallel`, `blocked-by`, `independent`. Enables `$prioritize` and `$plan` to respect ordering.
- **No vague dependency descriptions** — Each dependency must specify concrete PBI, service, or feature and WHY relationship exists.

## BA Team Refinement Context (canonical)

> Applies to Writes/Edits under `team-artifacts/pbis/`, `.../stories/`, `team-artifacts/ideas/`. Mirrored for Codex via `SYNC:ba-team-decision-model` / `SYNC:refinement-dor-checklist` in AGENTS.md (do not hand-edit the mirror).

**Decision Model:** 2/3 majority vote (UX BA + Designer BA + Dev BA PIC). Dev BA PIC has technical veto.
**Disagree-and-Commit:** Once decided, everyone commits. No re-litigating.
**Grooming Override:** BA team decision changes only if >75% remaining team votes to override.

**Role Scopes:**

- **UX BA:** UI/UX flows, wireframes, interaction AC, user research
- **Designer BA:** Design feasibility, product thinking, visual design, equal vote
- **Dev BA PIC:** Technical feasibility review, AI pre-review, DoR gate, grooming presentation

**DoR Gate (ALL must pass before grooming):**

- [ ] User story template (As a... I want... So that...)
- [ ] AC testable (GIVEN/WHEN/THEN, no vague language)
- [ ] Wireframes attached (UX BA) + UI design ready (Designer BA)
- [ ] (UI PBIs) Design spec linked — `$design-spec` artifact or inline UI specs present in `## UI Layout`; backend-only PBIs exempt (`N/A — Backend-only`)
- [ ] AI pre-review passed (`$artifact-review --type=pbi` or `$pbi-challenge`)
- [ ] Story points estimated by AI
- [ ] Dependencies table complete

**Refinement Cadence:** Always one sprint ahead. Weekly meeting (60 min + ~3h async).
**Skills:** Use `$pbi-challenge` for collaborative review, `$dor-gate` before grooming.

## Definition of Ready (INVEST)

| Criterion           | Check                        |
| ------------------- | ---------------------------- |
| **I**ndependent     | No blocking dependencies     |
| **N**egotiable      | Details can be refined       |
| **V**aluable        | Clear user/business value    |
| **E**stimable       | Team can estimate (XS-XL)    |
| **S**mall           | Single sprint                |
| **T**estable        | 3+ GIVEN/WHEN/THEN scenarios |
| Problem Validated   | Hypothesis confirmed         |
| Domain Context      | BR/entity context loaded     |
| Stakeholder Aligned | Validation interview done    |
| Prod Readiness      | Concerns documented          |

---

## Project Integration

For domain PBIs: detect module from `docs/specs/` directory names, extract business rules from `docs/specs/{module}/`, load entity context from feature doc. Target 8-12K tokens for feature context.

---

## Related

- **Role Skill:** `business-analyst` (detailed patterns)
- **Input:** `$idea` output
- **Next Step:** `$story`, `$spec [mode=tests]` (Recommended for TDD), `$design-spec`
- **Prioritization:** `$prioritize`

---

## Next Steps

**MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** after completing this skill, use ask the user directly to present these options. NEVER skip because task seems "simple" or "obvious":

- **"$why-review (Recommended)"** — Validate design rationale, alternatives, risk assessment before `$story` or implementation
- **"$domain-analysis"** — If PBI creates/modifies domain entities, model bounded contexts before writing stories
- **"$story"** — Break PBI into implementable user stories
- **"$pbi-mockup"** — Generate HTML mockup from PBI
- **"$spec [mode=tests]"** — If using TDD approach
- **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides

---

> **[IMPORTANT]** Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. Simple tasks: ask user whether to skip.

> **External Memory:** Complex/lengthy work → write findings to `plans/reports/` — prevents context loss.

> **Evidence Gate:** MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim requires `file:line` proof or traced evidence, confidence >80% to act.

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

> **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.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

<!-- SYNC:ui-system-context -->

> **UI System Context** — For ANY task touching `.ts`, `.html`, `.scss`, or `.css` files:
>
> **MUST ATTENTION READ before implementing:**
>
> 1. `docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md` — component base classes, stores, forms
> 2. `docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md` — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins, responsive
> 3. `docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md` — design tokens, component inventory, icons
>
> Reference `docs/project-config.json` for project-specific paths.

<!-- /SYNC:ui-system-context 

…(truncated)